// 



'-'/ 




<^ <: <: <:c c ' - 



( Ccc 
c c< c 

< C- ( 



C C^CC 
^c:c<: 

cc < 
CC c 



< c c 

cc <r 

C C Ci 

c c c 
c c cc c 

c c c c 

c c c c 



\\ 



^i Library OF Congress. - 



m. Shelf. 






; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



c:< <c < 

Cc cc c 
C< a ' 
C c « 
C'. c< 
C c cc 
-.< c CC 

rr c <( 

vC c c 



ccc (C 1 
< c< cc c - 
cci cc c< 

CCc cCC C< 
CC .CC C 

C C< CC C 

CCc cCC C< 

C C c c c c. c 
( C( ccc c 
c C c < C c < 
C Cc CC C< 
ccc c 

C C C C ' 



c < 

C< C 

C C 

c r 

C c. 



4<1^ 






ccci: c c c 



<• ccoe ^ 






TMK 




peat -t ©orptegt. 



ThB Chief Advacatss ni Anti-Mo rmnn 
Measures 



RBVIE^VBD 



By their Speeches in the House of Representatives, January 

12, 1887, on the Bill Reported by J. Randolph 

Tucker as a Substitute for Senator 

Edmund's Bill against the 

Mormon Church. 




^- 



Salt Lake City, Utah: 



^ 






/7-.^ ' 



^^ 



/7 'k hn 



Printed by 

The Deseret News Co., 

Salt Lake Cily, Utah. 



AN EXPLANATION, 



As THIS pamphlet is mainly a review of speeches, the imme- 
diate interest in which is past, and regarding a bill partially law 
and partially destroyed, it may be thought an attempt is mak- 
ing to revive a dead issue, to re-fight a battle that is over. 
There is one solid reason against such a thought: In all times 
the same charges are forever being made against Mormons 
and their faith. Though constantly denied, and persistently 
proven untrue, they are stiW repeated, and it is not unlikely 
that they will continue to be. The design in this work 
is to prove that these statements, thus made, and coming 
ever from one general source, must be false, because inher- 
ently contradictory; and being contradictory, they are value- 
less and discredit the source. If this can be done, and I am 
sure it is possible, something of perennial value to the cause 
of truth will have been accomplished. The reader must 
judge to what extent the object has been attained; how far it 
fails of being reached. But the subject itself is not a dead 
issue, and will never be uninteresting so long as there is oppo- 
sition to the work of truth. There is no other excuse to be 
offered for this pamphlet. 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 

Fighting for Human Liberty.— A Comparison: Mormons and Early 
Christians.— Why Christianity Survived.— A PoHtical Trick.— Polyg- 
amy a Trifling Concern.— A "Loyal" League.— How it was Worked. 
_Why.— Pap Wanted all Round.— Young Mormons the Hope.— 
Past and Future, from the Summit of Fifty years.— A Fragment of 
History.— The Light of Prophesy.— The Trust of Mormons.— God 
and the Constitution. Page ^ 

CHAPTER n. 
Speech of Hon. E. B. Taylor, of Ohio.— Anew Version of Early Mormon 
History.— Enhghtenment Needed on "Chiefly" and "Wholly."— A 
Soul-Crushing Tyranny with a Reflection on Unpromising Results.— 
A New Discovery in Marriage Possibilities.— A Verse on Crimes 
Against Chastity, with a Tail Piece on Church and State, and an 
Appendix on Obtaining Unobtainable Information. — Wanted. — A 
Case of Strangulation.— The "Job" Disclosed. n 

CHAPTER HL 
Taylor's Speech Continued.— Fanaticism Defined and a Reminder Sug- 
gested. — Mr. Taylor Discovers a New Method of Seizure. — Another 
Reminder with a Dissertation on how to Seize,^and when it cannot be 
Done.— A Startling Military Seizure of the same Order.— Mr. Tay- 
lor's Empire, the Only One on Earth.— A Capital Case Against a 
Church, and it will not hold Water.— Freedom of Worship.— To 
Stop Crime.— An Unalterable Opposition which is not Unalterable. 19 

CHAPTER IV. 
Hon. T. B. Reed's Speech.— An Adorer of Local Self-Government.— The 
District of Columbia and the Territories.— A Line about Fee Simple. 
—Rights that are Privileges and Privileges that are Rights.— A Sorry 
Dilemma.— Judge Black to the Rescue.— The Mormons Leave with- 
out Leaving.— How Mormons Take from the United States what 
belongs to Mexico.— A Shaken Reed. 26 



VI CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER V. 
Reed's Speech Continued. — A Church with a Pohty. — What is a Polity? 
— A Hint on Church Uses. — An Application in a New Quarter. — A 
Statesman's Duty. — An Unsounded Keynote. — Mr. Reed as an 
Historian. — Woeful Discrepancies. — The New Hierarchy. — Religion 
Unassaulted. — A Lawyer Ignorant of Law, — Pleading in Ignorance. 
— A Return of Love for Self-Government. — Such Testimony. — A. 
Hopeless Assault. 31 

CHAPTER VI. 
Hon. J. Randolph Tucker's Speech. — His Position in 1882, and in 1887. 
— Constitutional or Unconstitutional. — A Hedger. — The Power of 
Congress Over the Territories. — Origin of Present Claims. — A Dem- 
ocrat takes the Position which a Republican is Ashamed of — An 
undemocratic Democrat. — Direct and Indirect Untruths. — -A Verse 
on Colonization. — A New Point on Landed Rights. — Mr. Tucker, 
Henry George and Anarchists Agreed.^A Bad Break on the Subject 
of Monopolies. 39 

CHAPTER VII. 
Tucker's Speech Continued. — Another Reason which is Laughable. — 
"Territory" and "Territories." — Can Congress Sell a Territory? — A 
Logical Deduction from Absurd Reasoning. — "A Fellow Feeling."— 
Powers of Congress. — Insufferable Nonsense. — Even of a Mormon. 
— A Word on Belief. — Indifference to it. — A Grand Dictator and a 
Quack Statesman. — The Great Power of Belief. 46 

CHAPTER VIII. 
Tucker's Speech Continued.— He Flies to Holy Writ.— The Savior's 
Words Vilely Falsified. — Polygamy Condemned, Divorce Condoned. 
— A Shifting Fo^dation for a Decent Civilization. — The Jews as 
Civilizers. — What is a Decent Civilization? — Monogamy as a Founda- 
tion for Civilization in the Light of Infidel Greece, Pagan Rome and 
Revolutionary France. — Where Monogamy Sprang From and When. 
—Physical and Spiritual Death.— Polygamy and Christ's Teachings. 
A Silent Bible.— The Redeemer Libeled. S3 

CHAPTER IX. 

Tucker's Speech Continued.— The Nucleus of the State, and the Christian 
Home.— Buncombe. — History Persistently Falsifying.— A Contradic- 
tion.— The Great Commandment.— The Savior or Mr. Tucker, which 
is Right?— Homes in Utah.— A Few Tucker Paradoxes.— A Singular 



CONTENTS. VII 

Mother Demanded. — An Assumption. — Departing From God. — Co- 
existing Monogamy and Polygamy. — What David Said. — A Counter- 
feit Christianity. — A Falsehood Nailed. — Deliberate Nonsense. 58 

CHAPTER X. 
Tucker Continued. — "Our Own Christian People." — A Gentle Reminder. 
—The Friend of Religious Freedom Discovered. — The "Job" Dis- 
closed. — More Reasoning Needed. — That Polygamous State. — The 
Falsifier Impaled. — Satanic Effrontery. — Polygamy "A Very Small 
Part of the Whole Business." — A Speech Headed "Polygamy" only 
an Incident. — Another Reminder of a Past Assertion. — The Great 
Unparalleled. — The State of Deseret. — A Repudiator Repudiated. 64 

CHAPTER XI. 
Tucker Continued.— -A Corporation Already Dead to be Made "Deader." 
— The Dogberry Revealed. — He Wanders into the Past. — Profound 
Secrets w^hich are not Secrets. — Another Dilemma.— Mormon Rules 
that are Unknown, yet which Mr. Tucker had in Evidence before his 
Committee. —A rich Church Discovered. — The Job Again. — Dises- 
tablished and Disorganized, a Vital Distinction. — The Mysteries of 
Religion.— The old Story of Danger to the State. — "We be Free." 72 

CHAPTER XII. 
Tucker Continued. — A new Question. — A Greater than Diana of the 
Ephesians. — The old Story of Church and State with a Singular 
Variation. — Wiser than the Builder of Heaven and Earth. — Undis- 
guised Atheism. — A Question and an Answer which nail a Previous 
Untruth. — Another Query and Another reply. — A Wilful Deception. 
— Reminders in Several Directions.^ — A Bad Box. — Freedom of Wor- 
ship. — A Partnership.— The Church too Sacred. — The Deductions 
that are not Wanted, 78 

CHAPTER XIII. 

Tucker Continued.— What is Immorality? — The Prodigal's Return. — 
Comparisons Undesirable.— So much to risk for so Little and then to 
lose.- Going out of Public life.- A Vain Life.— Pity for the Weak.— 
A Day Signalized.— Blessed Time.— Time Comes when all is Forgot- 
ten.— Where men Should die.— A Finished task.— The Unseen line. 84 

Tucker's Substitute. 9° 



THE GREAT CONTEST. 



Speeches of the Chief Advocates of Anti-Mormon 
Measures Reviewed, 



CHAPTER I. 

FIGHTING FOR HUMAN LIBERTY.— A COMPARISON: MORMONS 
AND EARLY CHRISTIANS, — WHY CHRISTIANITY SURVIVED. 
—A POLITICAL TRICK.— POLYGAMY A TRIFLING CONCERN. 
— A "loyal" league, — HOW IT WAS WORKED. — WHY. — 
PAP WANTED ALL ROUND. — YOUNG MORMONS THE HOPE. 
— PAST AND FUTURE, FROM THE SUMMIT OF FIFTY YEARS. 
— A FRAGMENT OF HISTORY. — THE LIGHT OF PROPHECY. 
— THE TRUST OF MORMONS. — GOD yVND THE CONSTITU- 
TION. 

IT has been the claim of the Latter-day Saints that in 
making a defense in their own behalf they have been 
fighting for liberty in behalf of all men. At first blush this 
claim seems presumptuous. But if it be examined closely 
there will be found much to justify the assumption. Not that 
they have courted the assaults made upon them; but as a 
pecularity of their history, no action against them, either 
by lawless mobs or through legal means, has ever been taken 
that was not in violation of some principle dear to every liberty- 
loving heart. Thus, in defending themselves, they have stood 
manfully for principles that must endure forever, and which, 
violated even as a temporary expedient, or in response to "the 
tyrant's devilish plea" — necessity — bring unerring retribution 
when turned from their natural purpose. A philosopher 
declares that "it is never sensible to permit what is bad for 
the supposed sake of preventing what is worse;" and it has 
been the fate of all those who have undertaken the solution 
of this so-called problem, that they have been compelled to 



2 SOME REASONS. 

Stifle many reproofs of a better judgment in the wild hope 
that out of temporary harm ultimate good might come. Such 
a hope is in the face of all reason, as it is against all experi- 
ence. This has been the great difficulty in the way of 
"eradicating" Mormonism. It is because of this phase that 
Mormonism has become known as a "vexed problem;" 
because of this also that men possessed of instinctive states- 
manship have never touched the problem. But we do find 
those of vulpine sagacity— ambitious, with intellects propor- 
tioned to the sagacity that is the inherent instinct of the vulpine 
— madly protesting, despite the experience of all times, tem- 
porary evil to be justifiable that worse may not survive, and 
that such a departure from good will be in the cause of good. 
Reduce the proposition to a simple form and test it. When 
that which is wholly good brings forth that which is bad, then 
the wholly bad may produce good. Not till then; and this 
will never be. Yet it was on this plea — a temporary evil 
in behalf of permanent good — that the advocates of this 
policy urged the adoption of measures against the Mormons 
by the last Congress. 

Another great obstacle with those endeavoring to solve 
the Mormon problem is that the solution could only be accom- 
plished by the destruction of the Mormon Church. No one dare 
advocate this as a general principle. The instinct of self- 
preservation in every sane man would revolt at such an 
attempt. Because of this, efforts have been made to cast 
obloquy upon the people, that the nation might esteem the 
alleged evils designed to be eradicated but the outgrowth of 
license, as distinguished from religion. The great cry has been 
polygamy. Read the speeches of the three representatives in 
favor of this bill in the House on January, 12, 1887, and while it 
will be seen that the ostensible object in view was to suppress 
polygamy, each speaker in behalf of the bill stated distinctly 
that the purpose of the act was more. Mr. Taylor declared 
that the bill "contemplated more than the suppression 
of polygamy," and Mr. Tucker that polygamy was only "an 
incident," "a very small part of the whole business." A 
Church, because of the political strength of its members, was 
10 be destroyed. The principle of religious freedom, the 



SOME REASONS. 3 

right of worship — a constitutional right — was at stake. No 
man has ever dared put the issue in this light, and yet 
advocate such methods. But men have clothed themselves in 
false armor and under the cry of "polygamy" made an 
assault on a principle, believing — sincerely many, but madly 
all — that the end would justify the means. There is a most 
striking parallel between the character given the Mormons to- 
day, and that given the early Christians (adored in this age) who 
were sawn asunder, crucified, burned at the stake in Roman 
gardens as torches, and given to satisfy the hunger of wild 
beasts by pagan Romans and idolatrous Jews, for precisely 
the same reasons that are now urged as justifying the methods 
adopted against Mormons, viz: because they and their re- 
ligious customs were a menace to good government. One 
writer, speaking of the view the Romans held of early Chris- 
tians, makes use of this language: "They confused them with 
the whole, degraded mass of Egyptians and Oriental impos- 
tors and brute worshipers; they disdained them as seditious, 
turbulent, obstinate and avaricious; they regarded them as 
mainly composed of the very meanest slaves out of the gross 
and abject multitude; their proselytism they considered as the 
clandestine initiation into some strange and revolting mystery, 
which involved, as its direct teachings, contempt of the gods, 
and the negation of all patriotism and all family affection; 
* * * they thought it natural that none but the 
vilest slaves and silliest women should adopt so misanthropic 
and degraded a superstition; they characterized their customs 
as 'absurd, sordid, foul and depraved,' and their nation as 
prone to superstition, opposed to religion !" Suetonious and 
Tacitus speak of the early Christian religion as a "new," "per- 
nicious," "detestable," "execrable" superstition. Were I to 
read the above language, not knowing its application, I should 
solemnly aver it to be a reference to the Mormon people of 
today — an expression of the views entertained toward them 
by so-called Christians. 

The early Christian faith was sought to be destroyed. The 
effort failed. It did not fail, however, because the early 
Christians were perfect. It failed because the Romans, in 
this as they had for a long period in other regards, sought to 



4 SOME REASONS. 

destroy that which they esteemed evil by doing wrong them- 
selves. Not more surely does nature punish those who 
violate her laws, than do moral laws inflict penalties upon 
transgressors — and the one in the main is as little concerned 
about the good intentions of the wrongdoer as the other. 
The Christian religion survived and the vile and unredeemed 
paganism of Rome fell — not because men and women were 
burned at the stake, mutilated, and, living, turned in to be 
devoured by wild beasts, but because the Christian faith 
could not be assaulted save by transgressing principles which 
were true, and just, and eternal. The parallel is perfect. I 
cite but one case out of thousands. History of this kind 
makes no mistakes. It always produces the same results 
under the same conditions. It is not a phenomenon. It is an 
immutable law. 

If the argument of the enemies of Mormonism were based 
on polygamy alone, there might be some justification— though 
a lame one; but the very instant they leave'that, not a single 
point is raised against Mormons that cannot also be turned 
against every other church with equal force. Therefore, in 
defending their own church rights Mormons defend the 
principle by which every church enjoys freedom of worship, 
freedom to control its own concerns and to propagate its 
doctrines. When the law viciously attacks a Mormon because 
of his belief, and he resents, he then fights not only for his 
personal rights, but he defends, (and he cannot help it) that 
principle by which every member of every denomination, the 
believer in every creed, the very infidel and the atheist, enjoy 
the eternal right to hold their own judgment in all life's 
concerns without let, or hindrance, or scorn, or deprivation 
of rights by any man in all the world — by all men in all the 
earth. 

Mr. Tucker declares: 

"When religion veils itself in mystery and organizes its power over its 
individual members under the dread claim of a Divine commission to 
direct the actions and bind the consciences of men — when it accumulates 
great wealth, antt thus, through superstitious reverence, and by the 
influence which concentrated and corporate wealth always acquires, wields 
power over civil affairs; such an ecclesiastic organism is a menace to the 



SOME REASONS. 5 

civil power, and becomes dangerous to the liberty of the people and to 
the peace and good order of society." 

Is this an assault upon Mormonism alone? There is not a 
church, from the great Catholic organization down through 
all the weakling ecclesiastical products of this religiously 
weakling age, that is not assaulted by this observation. Take 
the thought home. Christians ! The rest lie easy because it is 
not brought to their immediate doors ; but the ever-widening 
circles caused by this pebble in the ocean of religious life will 
yet drive wickedly against other doors. Just as sure as 
heaven is the portion of the good, just so sure will a wrong 
done the Mormon Church, because it violates principle, bring 
to the doors of other organizations a brood of disasters that 
cannot be stayed. When Mr. Reed says the keynote of the 
Mormon problem is that the Mormons, as a church, have a 
polity, he assaults every organized religion — for all have poli- 
ties. If Mr. Tucker, as a Christian, can determine legisla- 
tively what Christianity is, will there not come a time when 
he, or some other individual inflicted with the rehgious doc- 
trines peculiar to his own sect, may rule out of court those 
not of his "mind, as being unchristian, and on this basis justify 
an assault on their church? In such a rational event could 
not Mr. Reed, or some believer in his sophistry, say of such 
an act: "It is useless to call this an assault upon a religion ?" 
Evil will run its course. We cannot place our hands upon the 
act done and bring it back. It goes on, so far as we are able 
to prevent it, for all time. If religious bigotry and sectarian 
prejudice are dead, then there is no danger. But they are not 
dead. There is danger. Thus Mormons, in fighting against 
wrongs heaped upon them in answer to wild and thoughtless 
demands, are, in their own behalf, actually defending prin- 
ciples for all mankind, and in behalf of those who have wrought 
them harm — saving others from themselves. Thus becomes 
true the assumption that at first blush appeared so arrogantly 
presumptuous. 

The fact that the legislation sought to be imposed upon 
the people of Utah (and which was, in a modified form, 
imposed) was not for the suppression of polygamy, is 



6 SOME REASONS. 

undeniable. From the days when ex-Governor Murray 
arraigned the Mormon Church in the North American 
Review, until the latest edition of the organ that defends the 
Loyal League, it has been conceded that polygamy was "but 
a very small part of the whole business." The Mormons, 
because of their numbers, have held political control in the 
Territory. They have been simple enough to hold, in a 
degree, the Apostle Paul's behest to the Romans, "Be of the 
same mind one toward another." The fruits of unity have 
been satisfactory. The minority has not had control of offices. 
Hence the trouble. The disincorporation of the Church 
would not alter the political conditions in Utah. Therefore, 
it is determined to invent a test oath to be applied to every 
Mormon. This is done. Yet Mormons may take the oath; but 
to cover any possible defect, the appointment of every officer 
in the Territory, about 3,500 in number, is placed by Mr. 
Tucker's bill (which is published at the end of this pamphlet) 
in the hands of the Governor, save 108 whom the President is 
given the power to appoint, and save members of the House 
branch of the Legislature. These are balanced by thirteen 
appointees in the Council branch and then blocked by this 
Governor with absolute veto power. No one can prove such 
a move is designed to suppress polygamy. Polygamy was the 
cry on which the promoters of this bill hoped to ride into 
office and spoils by taxing the Mormon people who then 
would have no redress. But the Territorial Marshal is given 
power to arrest any person whom he may think an offender. 
This Marshal is appointed by the President, and has authority 
to appoint deputies without number, all possessed of the 
same powers the bill confers on him. Was this to suppress 
polygamy? when citizens of Utah were even then arrested on 
sight and 97 per cent of the persons arrested were convicted? 
Then the Utah Commission, charged with the control of 
elections in Utah, is retained in position when all elective 
officers, save 26 are made appointive, and these 26 — members 
of the House branch of the Legislature and the Delegate to 
Congress — are elected but once in two years. Was this to 
suppress polygamy, or to steal a territory for a minority? 
This minority organized what is called the Loyal League, 



SOME REASONS. 7 

in Utah — a secret organization whose members are pledged to 
secure rule of the Territory by the minority. Each member 
pays fifty cents a month into the society, the funds to be used 
for the securing of the end in view by the speediest methods 
possible. As the representative of this League, R. N. Baskin 
(who said in a speech before the Judiciary Committee when the 
Senate bill was being considered and before Mr. Tucker's 
substitute was reported, that the object was to destroy a "the- 
ocracy)" went to Washington. C. W. Bennett went as anotht r 
lawyer. The League also employed lobbyists; and later on, its 
prominent members are understood to have joined in a peti- 
tion to the Governor of Utah, Caleb VV. West, asking him to 
go to Washington and aid in securing the passage of this bill. 
Whether the rumor be true or not, he did go and did use his 
influence to have passed a bill which, by the number of ap- 
pointments it gave him would, had it become law, have made 
him uncrowned King of the Territory. When the bill had 
passed the House he received a dispatch from prominent 
members of the Loyal League which read: "Well done, good 
and faithful servant?" Was this to suppress polygamy, or to 
get control of a territory in the interest of the few at the ex- 
pense of the many? The Utah Commission twice reported 
that the Edmunds law of 1882 was accomplishing all that 
could be expected of it and might be relied upon in time to 
hasten the final extinction of "Mormonism" — not polygamy. 
Yet the Commission recommended the passage of this bill or 
a measure embodying its main features. It could not have 
been the desire to have the bill passed to suppress polygamy, 
for that, as a part of Mormonism, under the operation of the 
Edmunds law of March 22, 1882, was already hastening to "ex- 
tinction." But this Commission recommended that the Gover- 
nor be given the appointing power "by and with the consent 
of the Commission." They wanted pap too. They wanted 
more. Unless some duty of this nature were imposed upon 
them their occupation was gone. Some excuse must be had 
for drawing a salary and it might thus be had. What does all 
this tell? As plain as the writing on the wall, this: Those not 
now possessed of office, yearned for it. The Governor pined 
for henchmen, and the Commission hankered for yet more 



8 SOME REASONS. 

authority, and to have the Governor, in a decree, dependent 
upon their caprice. It was the greed for place and thirst for 
power. The people of Utah, with polygamy as a stigma upon 
them, would long be serfs; and their cries, coming from 
"vile Mormons only," would be unheeded in this great and 
free nation. We can now see why "the pending bill," in Mr. 
Taylor's language, "contemplated niore than the suppression 
of polygamy;" and why Mr. Tucker considered polygamy 
"only an incident," a "very small part of the whole business;" 
and, lastly, why Mr. Risden T. Bennett, of North Carolina, un- 
challenged, designated it as a "job." Read the review of the 
speeches that follows, and if the whole scope and pur- 
pose does not unfold itself into an extended scheme for the 
destruction of a religious community and their robbery under 
the protection of law, then indeed there is nothing in the 
words of men; then the hawk has no design on the barn yard 
fowl; then the Millennium is come, and the lion and lamb may 
rest peacefully side by side. 

Following comes a review of the speeches made in the 
House, January 12th, 1887, in behalf of the bill reported to the 
House by the Judiciary Committee through its chairman, J. 
Randolph Tucker, as a substitute for the Senate bill. This 
review has been undertaken for two reasons : 

First — Because the speeches embrace nearly, if not all, the 
salient points ever made against the Mormons; though these, 
as they appear in different places, assume many strange and 
fastastic garbs. If it can be shown that the statements 
are fundamentally contradictary, the whole falls, and there 
is then left no case against the Mormons. Therefore, they 
stand acquitted. They have but to show the vain, untrust- 
worthy and inherently destructive statements of their assail- 
ants to make a case for themselves. 

Second — Because the young are appealed to ever as the 
hope of redeeming this country from "Mormon dominion." 
By glib sophistries, by loud acclamations from designing 
spoilers — traitors to humanity no less than to the nation — it is 
sought to allure the young from the ways of their fathers and 
to make eternally blind those already so biased that they can 



SOME REASONS. 9 

see nothing but treason in Mormons and in their faith. We 
are told that the future is best to be judged by the past. Let 
the Mormon youth, let the thoughtful reader, ask and think 
what the future promises a Mormon in the esteem of these 
"loyal men." when that future is read and foreshadowed by 
the light of the past. Half a century ago persecutions began 
against Mormons. On the summit of these years stand the 
people against whom this measure was directed. The youth- 
ful Mormon and the student may easily trace the road trav- 
eled. Along the line of march the earth has been beautified; 
it has smiled gladly wherever touched by them. In fifteen years 
the Mormons were driven three times from homes they had 
made, cities they had built, lands their efforts had blessed. Each 
time despoiled of all earthly possessions, and still, by the 
blessing that ever follows industry, they were wealtheir in 
worldly goods before each successive spoliation and exodus 
than at the one preceding. Across western wilds the favors 
of God and of nature, which ever crown the exertions of thrift 
and virtuous habits, still kept pace with that people. Thou- 
sands who abuse, misrepresent, malign and curse them, to- 
day luxuriate in the results of their self-denial and thrift, and 
bask In the fruits of a faith, without which eye had never seen 
the marvels they have wrought. But along this pathway there 
are also unmistakable traces of relentless persecution — of 
weary and worn mothers, starving babes at their breasts, the 
blood of fathers, brothers and husbands. The cry of treason 
swells in the rising wind, to be lost only with the bitter sobs 
of the wife knd mother among lone graves on trackless 
prairies and amid the undiscovered depths of majestic moun- 
tain chains. But the spirit of persecution never dies. When 
the object of its hate is again discovered the cry is renewed, 
gaining volume with each day, and now, on the summit of 
these years, the wild winds of public clamor again howl trea- 
son. The unholy thirst for treasure grows apace. Prejudice 
and hatred, increasing in intensity with the growth of wicked 
desires, is yearly, daily, hourly crystallizing against a people, 
whose faith, despised, ridiculed and condemned though it may 
be, has nevertheless worked a success admirable in the eyes 
of the wise and marvelous in the opinion of the students of 



lO SOME REASONS. 

vexed problems in modern times. Charges, undreamed of 
once, are now made boldly and believed by much of the 
American heart because of false alarms, and the treacherous 
beacon-light of political wreckers. Year by year laws are 
passed more stringent each than its predecessor, that would 
not have been dreamed of at first; and these laws, while they 
may receive the approbation of the unreasoning, must never- 
theless be profoundly condemned by those of sober thought 
and honesty. So gradual these encroachments, they have 
awakened neither suspicion nor alarm, till to-day, the barrier 
which should stand between Mormons and slavery, is laid low 
in the dust, and men do not see it or will not. This from the 
summit of fifty years. And what for the future? If history, as 
interpreted by worldly wisdom, teaches ought, may not the 
youth of Utah read in the unrequited past the story of the 
future of his people, and with their political death, behold 
the extinction of human liberty and the disruption of this nation 
as the crown of civilized governments, the glory of republican 
principles? 

Were it not for the abiding faith which, as the Latter-day 
Saint religion teaches its members, should be had in the eter- 
nal duration of the principles upon which this country is 
founded, what would the future hold out to young Mormons? 
If we read the future by the past, there is for the coming Mor- 
mons — the youth now asked to throw off as shackles the 
wise and loving restraints that a father throws about his child 
to shield him from harm — nothing but wrong at the hands of 
political tricksters, deprivation under the lash of spoilers and 
death from the hatred of blinded sectarians. But there is a 
light in prophecy which penetrates the dim and misty veil of 
the future. Guided by faith, warmed by the consciousness 
that eternal truth and never dying justice must prevail, the 
Mormon youth will still hope on, and the promises of God 
(that this government, the foundation of which was inspired of 
Him, shall survive the assaults of traitors under the name of 
"loyalists" and-"liberals" and will again be reverenced by men 
as of old) will buoy them up in the hour of darkness, enable 
them to elude the tempter's wiles, and teach them to preserve 
liberty for themselves by defending it for all the children of 



TAYLOR S SPEECH. II 

men. I only ask the youth of Zion, and fair minded of the 
nation, to read the following pages, and if it is not made 
apparent that this generation has inherited and reaped a 
harvest of falsehood regarding the Mormon people, then 
indeed is their's a hopeless case. If the clamor and rage 
against the Mormon people have no better foundation than this 
(and it has not) then is the house in which their enemies take 
refuge, built on sand; and when the rain of justice descends, 
when the wind of righteous public opinion sets in, and the 
flood of human kindness shall come and beat against it, that 
building will fall, "and great will be the fall of it." It will crush 
to eternal shame and contempt all who have taken refuge 
within its walls — save only those whom a kindly oblivion shall 
already have buried in unfathomable silence. 



CHAPTER II. 

SPEECH OF HON. E. B. TAYLOR, OF OHIO. — A NEW VERSION OF 
EARLY "mormon" HISTORY. — ENLIGHTENMENT NEEDED 
ON "chiefly" and "wholly." — A SOUL-CRUSHING TYR- 
ANNY WITH A REFLECTION ON UNPROMISING RESULTS — 
A NEW DISCOVERY IN MARRIAGE POSSIBILITIES. — A VERSE 
ON CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, WITH A TAIL PIECE ON 
CHURCH AND STATE, AND AN APPENDIX ON OBTAINING 
UNOBTAINABLE INFORMATION. — WANTED — A CASE OF 
STRANGULATION. — THE "jOB" DISCLOSED. 

MR. EZRA B. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, the pending 
measure contemplates more than the suppression of 
polygamy, and invites inquiry as to its scope and a 
brief history of the circumstances which have resulted in the 
necessity for legislative action. 

Comment. This quotation is made for later use, when it 
will be seen that you urge the bill on the main ground of 
polygamy. 



12 TAYLOR S SPEECH. 

Taylor. Joseph Smith was killed in an Illinois jail in 
1844, after which those who had followed him, some 20,000 in 
number, emigrated to the far west, and settled around Salt 
Lake in 1847, in a region of country belonging to Mexico. 

Comment. The Mormons did not '^emigrate." This 
fact is notorious. They were brutally driven from their 
homes. It requires little sense to detect the difference in the 
meaning of the words. Mr. Taylor being a Congressman, a 
legislator, the presumption is only fair that he chose the words 
carefully to mislead. 

Taylor. When the Territorial government [of Utah] 
went into operation, Brigham Young, having been appointed 
governor by the President, the conduct of affairs continued as 
before — wholly in the hands of the Mormons, and chiefly in 
the hands of the Church. 

Comment. That the conduct of affairs should continue 
in the hands of Mormons is not surprising for several palpable 
reasons: In whose hands, if not of Mormons, could they 
continue, since only Mormons were there? So far as Mormons, 
being the only persons there, were in official positions, so far 
only was the Church interested. If the offices were "wholly 
in the hands of the Mormons," and Mormons alone were 
there, and they, as you assert later on, are bound to the 
Church by the most tyrannical ties, how can it be that the 
concerns of the state were only "chiefly in the hands of the 
Church." Why this loop hole between "wholly" and "chiefly?" 
Is it a stagger at truth with a deflection in the direction of 
falsehood? But '^wholly" or "chiefly" as you will, what evil 
was there in state affairs continuing in the hands of the 
Mormons? What evil now? Mormons were, and Mormons 
are in the majority; they had and still have by far the greater 
interests at stake in securing a good government. What 
kind of a country did you or do you want? Mormons, being 
there alone, held the offices. That was republicanism. What 
on earth did you want them to do, since this is an evil? 

Taylor. The Territorial Legislature declared valid the 
acts incorporating the Church and the Emigration Fund 
Company, and those incorporations have since been the sources 
of poiver and the agents of the all-crushing tyranny exerted 
in Utah. 



TAYLOR'S SPEECH. I3 

Comment. The italicised words are untrue. This charge 
has again and again been made without a scintilla of proof. 
The time for unchallenged assertion has passed. But do you 
hold that a soul-crushing tyranny which takes the poor of 
this and of other lands, gives to them homes, lifts them in the 
scale of humanity, as these agencies have done? The last 
census shows that 90 per cent of Mormon heads of families 
own their homes. Would not a little of such soul-crushing 
tyranny be a Godsend to other parts even of this enlightened 
nation? 

Taylor. Congress in 1862 passed a law punishing bigamy 
and polygamy, but no considerable result followed the 
enactment, and in 1S82 the Edmunds law, so called, was 
passed, and has been somewhat more productive of convic- 
tions, but does not promise success in its object, because of 
the difficulties of making proof. 

Comment. All reliable evidence contradicts this declar- 
ation. This matter was up before the House Judicary 
Committee which reported the bill you advocate, and the 
evidence there gives you a flat contradiction. You were a 
member of that committee. Cases where the law fails, as 
interpreted and executed, are the rarest exceptions. The report 
of the Governor of Utah, Caleb W. West, made some time 
prior to the delivery of your speech, showed the mumber of 
convictions that have been secured under the brutal operation 
of the law which you assert "does not promise success in its 
object?" That report shows that but three per cent of the 
persons arrested have failed of conviction. Where will Mr. 
Taylor find a parallel to this? In cases of polygamy and 
unlawful cohabitation arrest and conviction have become inter- 
changeable terms. Even the Utah Commission, which advo- 
cated the passage of this, or a measure embodying its main 
features, reported that the execution of the law of 1882 was 
having a perceptible effect, and in time might be fairly relied 
upon to break up the practice against which it was aimed. Put 
the statements of these parties (the Governor of Utah and the 
Utah Commission) against those of this legislator, compare 
all with the facts and what shall we name the conclusion? 
What shall we say of this legislator? Still another point: 



14 TAYLOR'S SPEECH. 

"The difficulties of making proof." It is a fact that but three 
per cent of those arrested escape conviction. Therefore you 
either state falsely when you say the law "does not promise 
success in its object," because of "the difficulties of making 
proof," or Mormons are convicted and punished without proof. 
If you state truly, then the men in Utah charged with the 
execution of the law are vindictive scoundrels. You cannot 
escape this conclusion, and I shall not dispute it, though 
clearly you did not mean it; ninety seven per cent of convictions 
prove it. What human purpose could prompt a sane man to 
such flagrant violations of truth? Every conviction of a 
Mormon for polygamy or unlawful cohabitation has been 
almost entirely on Mormon testimony; and in numberless 
cases the evidence was furnished by the accused himself, who 
preferred the full penalty of the law to making a defense when 
that defense would subject his family, wives and children, to 
the most indecent and brutal interrogations. That the 
testimony warranted the convictions had is a different matter. 
Good lawyers say no. The Supreme Court of the United 
States has sustained that opinion in cases. 

Taylor. In Utah there are no records of marriages, 
either of the first or of the succeeding ones. None but 
officers of the Church can solemnize marriage, and those 
marriages succeeding the first only take place under circum- 
stances of the greatest secrecy. 

Comment. The testimony before your committee on this 
subject was that in Utah any person could perform the 
marriage ceremony. This was the testimony of Hon. F. S. 
Richards, a lawyer and a Mormon. No attempt has been 
made to deny it. The fact is irrefutable, and yet we are told 
that "none but Church officers can solemnize marriages." 
Had you stated that, according to Mormon doctrines, all 
Mormons were required to be married by Church officers you 
had told a truth. But you did not say that. In proof: Every 
denominational minister performs marriages; the Justices of 
the United States Courts solemnize marriages; the Justices of 
the Peace do marry applicants. There then being no marriage 
law the parties could marry themselves in Utah. They have 
done so, making it a civil contract. 



TAYLOR'S SPEECH. I5 

Taylor. Under the Territorial government there have 
been no laws punishing crimes against chastity, such as incest, 
bigamy, or even adultery, excepting the last, against which 
provision was made only in case the husband or wife of the 
guilty party prosecuted. 

Comment. If you think as loosely as you write or speak, 
the proper place lor you is not in Congress but an asylum. 
There have been Territorial laws against crimes of unchastity. 
This fact should be known by a man who says he spoke 
"after long and earnest study of the subject." What you 
meant to say, or should have said, is: There are "no 
laws punishing crimes against chastity," etc. But Mr. Taylor has 
already said that the "conduct of affairs continued as before — 
wholly in the hands of Mormons," and that the Church and 
Emigration Fund Company have been "the sources of power 
and the agents of the all-crushing tyranny exerted in Utah;" 
and he will declare later that the Church is "not an empire in 
an empire, but the empire itself." If this be true, then the 
Church dominates the state; its laws become the laws of the 
state. Now it is a fact that the most stringent laws of the 
Church are against unchastity — coming under which head are 
crimes, and the only crimes, that cannot be forgiven. Out of 
this fact has grown the wild charge, which has doubtless 
reached your ears, that the Mormons not only believe in, but 
also advocate and practice blood atonement. We will hear 
you say in a few minutes: The "Church governs all things 
with a steady hand; it disposes of life and liberty, it dictates 
laws." In view of these assertions what becomes of your 
point that there have been no laws against unchastity? If, as 
you say, the "Church absorbs as well as controls the state," 
then you forge an untruth when you say there are no laws 
against unchastity. If there are no laws against unchastity, 
then you forge an untruth when you say the "Church absorbs 
as well as controls the state." Take the dilemma at either 
end, you will find it too hot to hold. 

Taylor. It [polygamy] is now growing stronger, and is 
not confined to the boundaries of Utah. 

Comment. I defy you to prove this assertion. What 



l6 TAYLOR'S SPEECH. 

testimony there is on the subject proves the reverse of what 
you state. The Utah Commission, in a report to the Secre- 
tary of the Interior, for 1884, writes thus of the anti-polygamy 
law of March 22, 1882: 

We have more than once in our former reports suggested that as the 
Government has to deal here with a people who are wonderfully super- 
stitious and fanatically devoted to their system of religion, the public 
should not expect, as the immediate result of the present laws of Con- 
gresSj nor indeed of any legislation, however radical, the sudden over- 
throw of poly gamy I and we now repeat, the most that can be predicted of 
such legislation is that it will, if no step backward is taken, soon amelior- 
ate the harder conditions of Mormonism and hasten the day for its final 
extinction. 

In its last report the Commission uses this language: 

Whether, upon the whole, polygamous marriages are on the decrease 
in Utah is a matter on which different opinions are expressed, but un- 
doubtedly many persons have been restrained by the fear of disfranchise- 
ment and the penitentiary, and we think it is safe to say that in the more 
enlightened portion of the Territory, as for example Salt Lake City and 
its vicinity, very few polygamous marriages have occurred within the last 
year, while, on the other hand, in some parts of the Territory they have 
reason to beheve that it is otherwise. 

This is the most reliable testimony available. It comes from 
a source that is constantly protesting its anxiety to secure the 
extinction of Mormonism, and I suppose no one will question 
the sincerity of its protestations. But Mr. Taylor has said 
the Edmunds anti-polygamy law of 1882 does not promise 
success in its object. In the teeth of this assertion we not 
only have ninty-seven per cent, of convictions, but two reports 
from the authorized agents of the government, the open oppo- 
nents of Mormonism, in the first of which we are told this 
law will 

"Soon ameliorate the harder conditions of Mormonism and hasten 
the day for its final extinction," 

And in the second that 

"Undoubtedly many persons have been restrained [from polygamous 
practices] by the fear of disfranchisement and the penitentiary, * * * 
In the more enlightened portion of the Territory, -•- * "* very 
few polygamous marriages have occurred within the last year," [1886]. 



Taylor's speech. 17 

Do you give your information as more reliable than this? 
Where did you get it? These facts were before the House 
when it voted for the bill you are advocating; were before 
it when you voted for it. 

But a pertinent question is: How did you get your in- 
formation or the Utah Commission theirs? You have said 
the law of 1S82 "does not promise success in its object." Is it 
not a fair interpretation to say this means there were very few 
convictions? You have also said that polygamous mar- 
riages 

"Only take place under circumstances of the greatest secrecy." 

How then do you know that polygamy is growing stronger? 
How then is it that when arrests are of daily and nightly 
occurrence, but three per cent, of those arrested escape? 
Does not this again suggest that the testimony on which they 
are convicted is insufficient, or that you have again made a 
characteristically reckless declaration? As the law is vig- 
orously enforced, there must be convictions where there is 
guilt — the conviction of the ninty-seven per cent, of persons 
arrested shows this. But if this law does not promise success, 
it must be because it fails of securing convictions, which is 
not the case; or is it a failure because the convictions are not 
sufficiently numerous? If that be so, then the vigorous en- 
forcement of the law, coupled with the insufficiency of con- 
victions, proves that the law does promise success in its results; 
for the absence of convictions viewed in connection with the 
number of convictions to the arrests, proves that offenses 
under the law are rare. 

But if these marriages only take place under circumstances 

of the greatest secrecy, how comes it that you know polj'gamy 

is on the increase? How comes it there is so great a percentage 

of convictions to the number of arrests? And how do you 

learn that this growth is "not confined to boundaries of 

Utah?" And why, in view of this fact — admitting it to be 

such — do you legislate only for Utah? I defy human ingenuity 

to devise a method by which any being can more successfully 

"mix himself up" than you have succeeded in doing. And this 

is an American legislator! 
3 



l8 TAYLOR'S SPEECH. 

Taylor. Its friends, the Legislature of Utah, will not 
strangle it, [poli'gamy] but Congress must, and fortunately 
Congress can. It has the legal power under the Constitution, 
and it has the means at hand. 

Comment. Greater men than you deny that Congress 
has the Constitutional power. Heaven knows if it depended 
upon your utterances, its constitutionality might be questioned 
by every bootblack and scavenger in the land. But admitting 
you are right, will you kindly explain in what way this bill 
attempts to stop the practice. I say its last and least 
purpose is the suppression of polygamy. Since assertion 
is the rule, I say its purpose from inception to conclusion is 
the robbery and enslaving of a people. Do you forget that 
you opened your remarks by saying "the pending bill contem- 
plates more than the suppression of polygamy?" What else 
is there connected with the Mormon people that is criminal 
or that you dare make punishable either by fine or imprison- 
ment? What is this more that is contemplated? Silent! Yes 
silent, and for once wise! Other members of the committee 
which reported the bill — the committee itself— the bill's chief 
outside advocate — declared the purpose to be the destruction 
of a theocracy. Mr. Bennett, of North Carolina, in his speech 
declared "it was a job." The bill itself, in every line and feature, 
says it was a "job" — a determination to rob and enslave the 
Mormon people. This is the other end contemplated. 



TAYLOR S SPEECH. I9 



CHAPTER III. 

Taylor's speech continued. — fanaticis.m defined and a 
reminder suggested. — mr, taylor discovers a new 
method of seizure. — another reminder with a dis- 
sertation on how to seize, and when it cannot be 
done. — a startling military seizure of the same 
order. — mr, taylor's e.mpire, the only one on 
earth. ^a capital case against a church, and it 
will not hold water. — freedom of worship. — to 
stop crime. — an unalterable opposition which is 
not unalterable. 



T 



AYLOR, An earnest, resolute, and even fanatical 
people have taken possession of one of the large 
Territories of the Union. 



Comment, This is as clear as mud. Who says the people 
are fanatical ? Mr. Taylor. All hail ! There can be no more 
dispute as to what is fanatical. It is painful but necessary 
constantly to remind you of what you have previously 
asserted. You have already used these words: 

"Joseph Smith was killed in an Illinois jail in 1844, after which those 
who had followed him, some 20,000 in number, emigrated to the far west, 
and settled around Salt Lake in 1S47, ^ region of country belonging to 
Mexico." 

Comment. The italics are mine. Now you say this "fana- 
tical people have taken possession of one of the large Terri- 
tories of the Union'' On your own word they went to the 
country they now occupy when it belonged to Mexico. 
What it is today, the joy of those who admire the fruits of 
honest and persevering toil, and the cause of an uneasy itch 
on the part of those who would steal it, and rob and enslave 
its people, what there is to it, is there because the Mormons 
have made it. This is how the Mormons have taken posses- 
sion .of one of the large Territories of the Union. How 
cowardly, how contemptible the part of one who would 
detract from the unfriendly, rob the most vile even of the 



20 TAYLOR'S SPEECH. 

deserved mead of praise. In the heat of debate extravagant 
utterances are sometimes pardonable, but that a legisla- 
tor of the greatest nation on earth should be guilty of such 
cowardly imbecility, in deliberate black and white! 'Tis 
enough to make the nether angels weep! 

Taylor. They [the fanatical people] seized upon the 
public domain. 

Comment. But it was the domain of Mexico. You have 
said so. Why do you complain? Even were it not so, has not all 
this land been paid for? Why then say "seized?" If you 
have no better conception of the value of words, the kinder- 
garten and not Congress is the place for you. 

Taylor. [A fanatical people] established a Church which 
absorbs as well as controls the state. 

Comment-. What about the absence of laws against 
crimes of unchastity then? The Church and the state are 
one, if the latter is absorbed. Therefore, if the Church have 
laws against unchastity, the state, being one with the Church, 
also has laws against these sins and crimes. Why then did 
you say that "under the Territorial government there have 
been no laws punishing crimes against chastity," etc. 

Taylor. [A fanatical people] seized all the civil power, 
including the education of children. 

Comment. Again we have the word "seized." There could 
have been neither civil nor ecclesiastical power in Utah, as there 
would have been occasion for none, until it was inhabited by 
men. Those who first locate in a place, be it where it may, 
are the source of human power there. Power could not be 
seized of men till men were clothed with power, and the 
Mormons, coming here and finding no human power, could 
seize none. Hence, they did not "seize" power, neither civil 
nor ecclesiastical. Such as they had they brought with them. 
By their efforts in habiting and building up this part of the 
country, which subsequently became part of the United States 
domain, they made it possible for a republican government to 
establish its agents in this section. It did so. The power 



TAYLORS SPEECH. 21 

the Mormons hold to-day, the power they have held since this 
land fell to the United States, and a Territorial form of 
government was established here — save always that which is 
above all governments, which comes from the Eternal One 
alone— is the gift of the United States; and being a gift it 
could not ba seized by those to whom it was given. Perhaps 
you will understand now that you sometimes use words as the 
amateur violinist does the fiddle — without skill and to the 
disgust of all who hear you. 

The Church, as such, does not attempt to interfere with 
the education of children. Schools, operated under Territorial 
law, are free from religious instructions. This fact is so widely 
known, has been so widely published, that one cannot believe 
you ignorant of it. Draw your own conclusion from this 
remark. 

Taylor. [A fanatical people] seized the whole military 
force and gave it into the hands of the Church. 

Co^niENT. But there was no military force in Utah when 
the Mormons first reached that land. How then could they 
seize it? You have also said the territory was originally 
"wholly" Mormon, and the offices were "chiefly" in their 
hands. H3w could they "seize" that which they already 
possessed, which could belong to no one but themselves? 
Except the United States army, there has been no military 
force in Utah for over fifteen years; the militia was disbanded 
by Governor Schafer, in 1870? Do you mean to say the 
United States army in Utah has been seized by the Mormons 
and given into the hands of the Church? If not, what do you 
mean? Does it not bsgin to dawn on you that you have been 
talking insufferable rubbish? 

Taylor. [The Church] is not an empire in an empire, 
but the empire itself. 

Comment. Hear him, ye gods! This "empire itself," the 
Church,or the Territory of Utah, as you like,sends a Delegate 
to each Congress of the United States; it has accepted from the 
the United States a Territorial form of government; upon 
this "empire" are imposed, by the United States, a governor 



22 Taylor's speech. 

with absolute veto power, a commission which directs all 
elections, a secretary, judges, prosecuting attorneys, marshals, 
surveyors, persons through whom only the land of the "em- 
pire" can be had by giving money to the United States, 
revenue collectors, postmasters, and for this "empire" laws are 
framed by Congress, under the operation of which the most 
noted men in the Territory, the kings of this "empire," and 
its potentates, flee in dread of laws which are repugnant to 
the "empire" and to its leaders; to the United States Terri- 
torial courts in this "empire itself," cases are constantly 
being taken; the subjects of "this empire" hold themselves 
amenable to United States courts and officers, and they 
appeal from United States courts to United States courts until 
that of last resort has been reached; the people of this 
"empire itself" believe, and so proclaim, the Constitution of 
the United States to have been inspired of God. And this 
"is not an empire in an empire, but the empire itself." What 
language could adequately describe the insufiferableness of 
this twaddle? 

Taylor. That Church governs all things with a steady 
and relentless hand, it disposes of life and liberty; it dictates 
laws and practices, and has, in the name of religion, imposed 
upon its subjects faith in and practice of polygamy. 

Comment. To all these statements (in the spirit I com- 
prehend them to be given by you), I give the most unqualified 
lie. If it governed all things with a steady and relentless hand, 
death would be the portion of those wlio apostatized; who by 
trying to undermine it would be traitors to the church. I adopt 
herein your conclusion, for you charge that it "disposes of life 
and liberty." That is a wilful and malicious lie. The proof? 
It is seen in the protection afforded every rank apostate who 
hates and labors to destroy the Church, yet who thrives and 
prospers; the proof is in the person of every man who raises 
his voice against the religion and the people, who nevertheless 
lives here and grows wealthy apace; it is found in the men who 
give of their means to secure legislation that will place the 
people of Utah at their mercy. The proof is in the conduct of 
United States judges and prosecuting attorneys who distort the 



TAVI.OR S SPEECH. 23 

laws and send Mormons to prison, and who turn loose upon 
the community licentious and degraded scoundrels; it is seen 
in the killing of Mormons by Gentiles and apostates clothed 
with the majesty of United States authority, and who are 
acquitted and returned to honor; it is seen in the fleeing of 
Mormons honored and esteemed; it is seen in the business 
depression of the Territory! Turn where you will, whether 
to social, ecclesiastical, business or material quarters and 
there, as indelible as the wrongs that have been heaped for 
years upon the Mormon people, is written, deep and damning 
proof— till there is nothing but proof. It is a falsehood, a 
base, unqualified, unmitigated falsehood. 

The Church does not impose upon its subjects the practice 
of polygamy. The testimony before your committee by a 
Mormon, Mr. Richards, was that it was permissive. The 
United States Congress ousted Hon. Geo. O. Cannon from his 
seat in that body, not because he was a Mormon, but because 
he was a polygamist. This was notice that no professing 
polygamist should again sit in Congress. Hon. John T. Caine, 
who represents Utah as delegate, a member for several years 
with you, is a Mormon and was. You knew him to be one. 
You knew he could not sit there as a member were he a polyg- 
amist; and yet you had the hardihood to say that the Mormon 
Church imposed upon its subjects the practice of polygamy? 
Can you help being contemptible in your own eyes? 

Taylor. This bill undertakes * '^- * to insure 
in Utah, as elsewhere, equality of rights to all churches, giving 
all freedom of worship and of conscience, but also subjecting 
all to the laws of the land. 

Comment. The presence in Utah of denominational 
churches, with ministers who make a practice not only of 
denouncing Mormons and their faith on the platform and in 
the pulpit in Utah, but who make periodical visits east and 
west, and by abundant abuse of this people and their faith, 
gather in the needful dollar, show that freedom of worship is 
one of the most unquestioned facts regarding Utah. Correla- 
tive proof is established by the presence of large schools 
operated in the interest of religions opposed to Mormon belief, 



24 TAYLORS SPEECH. 

and which have been founded with the avowed purpose ot 
winning from the Mormon faith the offspring of Mormon 
parents. And it is the boast of these institutions that they are 
making good headway. 

But this bill is not designed to insure freedom of worship. 
That were needless. Its purpose is to reach and search the 
conscience of every Mormon, and while it may fail in its 
ulterior purpose — the immediate slavery of the Mormon 
people — it has nevertheless been successful in touching the 
consciences of many who only believe certain things, but who 
have broken no law and who design to break none. Its design 
was to rob Mormons of the manliness of citizenship. You 
know that was its purpose; you knew it when you said it was 
intended to secure freedom of worship. 

Taylor. This bill proposes * * * to place the 
government of Utah largely in the hands of officers appointed 
by the President of the United States, not only that crime may 
cease, but that good government may exist. 

Comment. What reason was there for this proposed 
course? What authority have you for stating that good 
government does not exist in Utah, and has not existed? and 
if good government does exist what becomes of your talk 
about evils existing? Before your committee, treating on this 
subject, Hon. Jeff. Chandler made the appended statement. 
It was never challenged. It wa^ never denied. The reason 
was that challenge and denial were impossible: 

The Gentiles come here with a representative [R. N. Baskin] who tells 
you that he has lived in that Territory for twenty years, and during that 
time this so-called Mormon element held absolute political power within 
the Territory of Utah. They made all the laws that affect the domestic 
welfare of all the people living in that Territory, and yet, during the three 
hours which he occupied in his argument before this committee he could 
not, or did not, recollect a single instance where the Gentile population, 
though in a small minority, have been unequally or unjustly treated by 
this legislation. Now, so far as they present themselves here as a class 
they state no grievance against themselves. They do not come here and 
say that the political power of Utah ought to be taken out of the hands of 
this majority because the majority uses that pawer oppressively against 
them. Not at all. They do not say that taxation is unequal or unjust 



Taylor's speech. 25 

or that any privileges are denied them which are enjoyed by the majority, 
or that there is anything in the domestic government which gives them 
the shghtest cause to complain. Dd they say that they receive unfair 
treatment in the courts of Utah? Not at all. Do they show you a single 
instance in the adjudication of that Territory from its creation down to 
this hour wherein the Gsntiles have not been fairly and justly treated by 
the courts? Not at all. Than what dj they complain of? It is that the 
majority does not deport itself in a hn inner to excite the approval of the 
minority. A population of 150,000 does not in all things conduct itself 
so as to meet the absolute and unqualified approval of 30, 000, and therefore 
they ask that the political power of the majority shall be taken away from 
these 150,000 and left with the minority. 

Taylor. All these objects meet my most unqualified 
approbation after long and earnest study of the subject. I 
am, therefore, pained to find one provision in the bill to which 
I am unalterably opposed. For a long time female suffrage 
has prevailed in Utah, as in other Territories, with no known 
evils connected with it. This bill strikes that down without 
any complaint as to the manner in which it has been exer- 
cised and without any allegation of danger in the future exer- 
cise. * * '-^ Will the precedent be invoked hereafter, 
and if so, in what direction? Who can tell? In spite of this 
objection, I shall earnestly support the bill. 

Comment. But notwithstanding an unalterable opposition, 
an appalling suggestion, and a couple of queries, you alter 
your opposition, and in the next breath promise earnestly to 
support that to whichyou declare yourself unalterably opposed. 
Human endurance is exhausted. It is but justice to the race 
to assume this to be the only example of the kind on record. 
Let us pray so. 

It is most improbable that a knave could be half so stupid 
or contradictory. There is scarcely a statement in your 
speech that, in its terms or spirit, might not be successfully 
controverted. I could almost challenge any being, the most 
astute and ingenuous, to bring, within smaller compass, more 
contradictory assertion. What you do say is not significant; it 
is not original; but it does possess, nevertheless, one clear and 
distinguishing characteristic: It is villianously untrue, and you 
have furnished the proof yourself. 



26 reed's speech. 



CHAPTER IV. 

HON. T. B. reed's SPEECH. — AN ADORER OF LOCAL SELF GOV- 
ERNMENT. — THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE TERRI- 
TORIES. — A LINE ABOUT FEE SIMPLE. — RIGHTS THAT 
ARE PRIVILEGES AND PRIVILEGES THAT ARE RIGHTS. — A 
SORRY DILEMMA, — ^JUDGE BLACK TO THE RESCUE. — THE 
MORMONS LEAVE WITHOUT LEAVING. — HOW MORMONS 
TAKE FROM THE UNITED STATES WHAT BELONGS TO 
MEXICO. — A SHAKEN REED. 

BUT if Mr. Taylor is a featherweight, the same cannot be 
said of Mr. T. B. Reed, of Maine, to whose remarks the 
following criticisms seem just. It may be stated that Mr. Reed 
began his twenty minutes' speech by protesting his unqualified 
approval of local self government. "I am a believer in local 
self-government. I am also a thorough believer in govern- 
ment by the people, and I look upon many of the tendencies 
— temporary I trust — of modern times with great distrust; lor 
instance, the tendency to take from the people of this country 
their power of frequent examination into the acts of their 
officials. "^ 

Reed. Gentlemen who have discussed this question upon 
the other side have done so always under the implied 
assumption that the Territory of the United States occupies 
the same relation to the United States as the Territory of a 
State. , 

Comment. This is not a fact. They argued simply on the 
assumption that a man who, in a State, was a citizen of the 
United States, continued to be one even when he went into 
a Territory. This fact is not denied in theory. In practice, 
however, so far as Utah is concerned, a citizen loses many of 
his rights, and the bill then under discussion proposed to 
establish the condition of complete servitude beyond equivo- 
cation. 

Reed. The right of self-government is a right which 
exists in a State, which belongs to the inhabitants of the 



reed's speech. 27 

State, and which the Constitution declares Congress shall 
guarantee to the State. But the territory owned by the 
United States occupies an entirely different relation. Why, 
here in this district, before our very eyes, has been established, 
amid the acclamations of gentlemen on the other side, a 
government which does not allow the residents of a city of 
200,000 inhabitants the least power or control over the affairs 
of the land they inhabit. It allows them neither control over 
their own local affairs nor participation, as citizens of the 
United States, in the common affairs of the country. _ This 
arises from the peculiar situation of the territory which is 
occupied by the seat of Government. 

Comment. The point you endeavor to make here, as it 
rests on a fallacious assumption, is valueless. In the first 
place the Constitution distinctly provides for such territory as 
the District of Columbia, and gives Congress exclusive jurisdic- 
tion over that section only. It does not provide for what is now a 
Territory. Such a government was never contemplated by the 
framers of the Constitution. This fact is undeniable. In the 
second place, the rule prevailing in the District of Columbia 
is applied to the Territories only by a strained and arbitrary 
reading — so strained and so at variance with the republican 
spirit of the Constitution, that the first republican who 
advanced the idea, which so many now deem correct, was 
ashamed of his own claim — though it prevailed. In the 
course of Hon. Jeff Chandler's argument before the House 
Judiciary Committee when considering the Edmunds bill as it 
passed the Senate, and before Mr. Tucker offered his 
substitute, the following dialogue took place, relating to this 
point: 

Mr. Chandler. The Territories of the United States 
have been permitted to govern themselves without exception 
for the last sixty years. There was an exceptional govern- 
ment established in the Territory of Florida at one time, but 
only to meet a temporary state of affairs. Since that time the 
people of the Territories have been allowed to govern them- 
selves. 

Mr. Stewart. All except you people here in Washing- 
ton. 

Mr. Chandler. Here the government owns us body and 
soul. They own our parks and buildings; they own our 
streets, and we have but little to govern ourselves about. 



28 reed's speech. 

The Chairman. [Mr. Tucker.] Would not the reverse 
proposition, in some degree, be true — that you own the 
government? 

Mr. Chandler. Not at all. I think the most insignificant 
position a man can occupy in Washington is to be a simple 
citizen. If he is not clothed with power he may not be a man 
to be looked upon with contempt, but he is regarded with the 
most painful indifference. Btit they do not propose to estab- 
lish such a government in Utah as we have here. Here you 
have a committee for the District of Columbia alone, and 
besides you own three-fourths of everything that is worth 
owning in the District. Then, again, a conference is con- 
stantly going on between the agencies you establish for 
government and yourselves. You do not give the Commis- 
sioners any power to legislate, as is asked for in Utah. 

But even if the points here taken were not true, it 
does not follow that the citizens of the District of Colum- 
bia are not entitled to the right of suffrage. Is the growing 
desire for local government within the District opposed to the 
spirit of the Constitution? Even the fearless Reed dare not 
claim that. Does the colossal representative from the timber- 
covered hills and herring shores of Maine hold that he 
loses any rights as a citizen becase he resides part of the time 
in the District of Columbia? When he makes these admis- 
sions — he will never make them — then his point about the 
Territories of the United States being as the District of 
Columbia will have some merit in it; but not until then. 

Reed. Now, what is the position of a Territory of the 
United States? It is land owned by the United States outside 
of the territory of the States themselves. Even when the fee 
simple has passed, it is our domain. 

Comment, Granted; but is not this just as true of a State? 
Certainly. Then if you possess it in a Territory only as you 
do in a State, your whole point fails, for you have already 
marked a difference. You dare not apply the doctrine to a 
State that you do to a Territory. It was simply childish to 
argue that because the domain, even when the fee simple has 
passed, belongs to the United States, you can therefore con- 
trol it and its inhabitants as you choose. If your point rests 
on this, it is worthless; if it does not rest on this, then difficulty 
will be experienced in ascertaining what under heaven you 
mean. 



reed's speech. 29 

Reed. Congress has allowed to the inhabitants of the or- 
ganized Territories the exercise of certain poHtical privileges. 
These have been accorded to the temporary residents there, 
7iot as rights, bid as privileges extended by the hand of Co?igress. 

Comment. Then a citizen of the United States has no 
rights, only privileges accorded him? Can it be possible that 
Mr. Reed will damn his own point? Let us see. A few min- 
utes later, referring to the entrance of the Mormon Pioneers 
into the valleys of Utah, he uses these words: 

Reed. They [the Mormons] knew nothing of the value of 
the mineral lands; and years afterward the swarming miners, 
when they went there, found themselves, except as to mineral 
privileges, deprived of all the rights which fairly belonged to 
them as citizens of the United States. 

Comment. This is painful. You declare in one breath 
that people in Territories have no rights, oxAy privileges'^ then 
you say they were deprived of ''all rights which fairly be- 
longed to them as citizens of the United States." Will you 
please state which time you were correct? Have they rights 
or have they none? You have advanced [both theories. Re- 
liable as you are, even Mormon faith is unequal to this 
demand. We will let Judge Black decide, as you are doubt- 
ful, or equally positive on two inherently contradictory propo- 
sitions. You can stand to be pitted against Black, if he can. 

Judge Black. It is true, also, that the general govern- 
ment may give the colonists a charter, and call it an act of 
incorporation or an organic act. This was what the imperial 
government of England did for the several colonies that 
settled on its land in America. But the charter must be a free 
one. If it abridges the liberty of the people to do as they 
please about matters which concern nobody else, it is void. 
Even if the colonists could consent, for a consideration, to 
accept an organic act imposing restraint upon their right of 
self-government, they could throw it off as a nullity; for the 
birthright of a freeman is inalienable. I need not say that 
foreigners naturalized are on a level with native citizens'. 

As Congress cannot give, so it cannot withhold the bless- 
ing of popular government in a Territory. But the legislation 
now proposed, in addition to that already passed, would 
blacken the character of the federal government with an act 
of cruel perfidy. The charter you gkve to Utah was in full 



30 reed's speech. 

accordance with the broad principle of American liberty. 
You organized for them a free territorial government, put into 
their hands all the machinery that was needed to carry it on; 
the ballot to be used under regulations of their own; officers 
chosen by themselves to administer their local affairs, collect 
the taxes and take charge of their money, and a legislature 
representing them — responsible to them — clothed with exclu- 
sive power to make their laws, and to alter them from time to 
time as experience might show to be just and expedient. 
Gilding your invitation with this offer of free government, you 
attracted people from every state and from all parts of the 
civilized world, whose industry scattered plenty over that 
barren region and made the desert bloom like a garden. Now 
you are urged to break treacherously in upon their security; 
supersede the laws which they approve by others which are 
odious to them; make their legislation a mockery by declar- 
ing that yours is exclusive; drive out the officers in whom they 
confide, and fill their places with raging and rapacious ene- 
mies; take away their right of suffrage, and with it all chance 
of peaceable redress; break down the whole structure of the 
territorial government, under which you promised to give 
them a permanent shelter. Would not this be a case of punic 
faith? Apart from all question of constitutional morality, the 
conduct of the wrecker who burns false lights to mislead the 
vessel he wishes to plunder does not seem to me more perfid- 
ious." 

Reed. A long time ago a body of religionists left the 
United States, marched across the plains, and took possession 
of certain property belo7igi?ig to the people of the United States, 
out of which we had determined, in pursuance of our general 
policy, to make some day a State. 

Comment. The italicized words are quoted simply to 
show that it is one of your failings, on this subject at least, to 
be contradictory. Perhaps you will kindly explain how the 
people left the United States and still remained in the United 
States. 

The people left the United States because they were three 
times driven from homes they had made, from lands they had 
paid the United States government for in honest money earned 
by honest toil. These lands have never been returned to 
them. To this day no Mormon has received a dollar of com- 
pensation for his losses; nor the original price of the lands in 
the possession of which he was guaranteed by this govern- 
ment. The statesman from Maine would hide the fact that 



I 



REEDS SPEECH. 3I 

Mormons were "driven" under the term "left," as his feather- 
weight compatriot, Taylor, attempted to cover the outrage 
under the term "emigrated." 

But the last quotation from you contains a palpable un- 
truth. The Mormons did not take "possession of certain 
property belonging to the United States." They left in the 
United States land that belonged to them. They took pos- 
session of "certain property belonging" to Mexico; and on an 
eminence that overlooks what is now Salt Lake City, 
these Mormons planted the flag of that country whose 
President had said, when they appealed to him for protection 
in their "own land:" "Your cause is just, but I can do 
nothing for you." Very different from what you charge them 
with — very different, for this is true. And later on you are 
compelled to make this admission in answer to a question 
put to you by Hon. P. A. Collins, of Massachusetts. 



CHAPTER V. 

reed's SPEECH CONTINUED. — A CHURCH WITH A POLITY. — 
WHAT IS A POLITY? — A HINT ON CHURCH USES. — AN AP- 
PLICATION IN A NEW QUARTER. — A STATESMAN'S DUTY. — 
AN UNSOUNDED KEYNOTE. — MR. REED AS AN HISTORIAN. — 
WOEFUL DISCREPANCIES. — THE NEW HIERARCHY. — RE- 
LIGION UNASSAULTED. — A LAWYER IGNORANT OF LAW. — 
PLEADING IN IGNORANCE. — A RETURN OF LOVE JFOR SELF- 
GOVERNMENT. — SUCH TESTIMONY. — A HOPELESS ASSAULT. 

REED. But it was not merely a band of religionists; it 
was a people that had a polity. The Delegate from 
Utah himself, either in a moment of forgetfulness 
when he wrote his manuscript, or in a moment of forgetful- 
ness when he was talking, spoke of "the Mormon polity." 
There is the keynote of the situation. Those people went 
out there as the representatives of a polity. They went there 
as a government. 



32 REEDS SPEECH. 

Comment. According to Webster "polity" has two mean- 
ings. With the instinct of a lawyer, whose ambition, above 
truth even, is to succeed, you have adopted the one meaning 
which alone could give ground to stand upon in the argu- 
ment that follows: "The form or constitution of a civil 
government by which a nation or a State is organized. The 
framework or organization by which the various departments 
of a civil government are combined into a systematic whole." 
This is one of Webster's definitions, and on the strength of it, 
you say of the Mormons: "They went there as a government." 
There is much cheap talk in this age of church interference 
in temporal affairs. Perhaps some genius will explain how 
any church can have excuse for existence if its purpose 
be not to affect temporal affairs through its members. To 
say it can have an excuse for existence, and not reach temporal 
things, is to talk insufferable nonsense. All churches have 
temporal concerns. Are not all temporal affairs in some man- 
ner related to the civil government? Where can the line be 
drawn? What Congressman dare draw it? Has not every 
church, therefore, a polity? If that be treason, has Mr. Reed, 
apart from Mormons, the manhood to say so? Dare he say it 
of the Catholic or the Methodist church? Mr. Reed dare not. 
Let us apply Mr. Reed's reason in a new direction, and note its 
results. The Republican party, of which the Maine Congress- 
man is so distinguished a representative, has a "polity." It 
could not exist without it. And its polity is purely one refer- 
ring to civic concerns. As this country is Democratic, should 
not every Republican, on Mr. Reed's basis, be disfranchised 
because he belongs to an institution which has a "polity," 
that polity differing from the polity of the Democracy, which 
is to-day in the ascendant? Mr. Reed should be ashamed of 
his argument. 

Mr. Webster's second definition of polity (and it follows 
on the heels of the other, as a part of it, by the use of the 
word "hence") is: "The form or constitution by which any 
itistitution is organized; the recognized principles which lie at 
the foundation of a)iy human institution.''^ Is the Republican 
party not an "institution?" A "human institution?" Has it 
no "organization?" Has it no "principles?" If Mr. Reed can 



reed's speech. 33 

make these admissions then the Republican party has no 
"poHty;" then Mr. Reed's position, while it renders a Mormon 
unfit for citizenship, may yet leave him loyal, but not other- 
wise. Mr. Reed dare make no such admissions. Mr. Reed 
forgot to use his brains. He did a very popular thing. 

Reed. The Delegate from Utah himself, either in a 
moment of forgetfulness when he wrote his manuscript, or in 
a moment of forgetfulness when he was talking, spoke of 
"the Mormon polity." 

Comment. The Delegate did not forget himself. The 
only place in his speech where the word "polity" is used is in 
a quotation, made from a man, who, like Mr. Reed, is not a 
Mormon, but who, unlike Mr. Reed, was using his brains to 
tell the truth, not to indulge in watery sophistry. This 
gentleman was referring to Mormonism as a church, as an 
institution within the second definition of the word "polity" 
which I have given; and if Mr. Reed had been as anxious for 
information as he was to make a speech against Mormons, he 
would have listened to the debate instead of writing letters 
and might thereby have avoided a blunder because of which 
a man of principle could not rest till righted, and which a 
reasoner would blush for because of its pettifogging linea- 
ments. 

Reed. The Delegate from Utah himself, either in a 
moment of forgetfulness when he wrote his manuscript, or in 
a moment of forgetfulness when he was talking, and spoke of 
"the Mormon polity." There is the keynote of the situation. 

Comment. Well, suppose they had a polity. Is there 
anything wrong about it? Let us admit they have a civil polity 
which does not harmonize with yours. If their polity, by its 
results, after ample time for mature developement, proves to 
answer the purposes of life better than your polity, what is the 
duty of a statesman? Unqualifiedly to adopt the better polity. 
You have not proved the Mormons to have a polity in the 
sense which you designed should be understood. If they 
have a polity in any civil sense you have not proved that it is 
opposed to the one upon which the United States are founded. 
But if they have a polity, and if it does differ from that of the 



34 reed's speech. 

United States, you have not proved, nor attempted to prove, 
that the Mormon polity is not the superior one. "There is the 
keynote of the situation." You have not touched it. You 
dare not touch it. Yet with the adroitness of an expert 
pleader you would lead to the belief that you had sounded 
the keynote from its lowest note to the topmost. 

Reed. What did they do? With that rare foresight which 
indicates statesmanship, and which we should compliment if 
the object had been just, the Mormon Church took possession, 
under the forms of law, of every acre of arable land. The 
land out there required to be irrigated; and they took pos- 
session of every source of water supply. They took posses- 
sion of the forests. 

Comment. This simply shows how unreliable you are. 
The bill refers to an entire Territory; the purpose of it, in 
some respects, to other Territories. Neither the Mormon 
Church nor its people, took "possession of every acre of arable 
land;" nor of "every source of water supply." The whole 
statement is bathed in falsehood. The testimony before the 
Judiciary Committee which considered the bill under discus- 
sion showed that the right to control the waters of only five 
streams were given. These five combined would not be 
larger than the Jordan river, a very medium sized stream. 
There are in Utah twenty-four counties, in each of which 
there will average perhaps eight to ten streams — say two 
hundred all told — nay, say one hundred. Out of this number 
the provisional government, for the public benefit, gave the 
use of five streams. Yet Mr. Reed says: "They took pos- 
session of every water supply." Comment would be agoniz- 
ing. 

Reed. The Mormon Church took possession, under the 
forms of law, of every acre of arable land. 

Comment. If they did this where has the arable land 
taken up by new comers for the last thirty-eight years been 
obtained? They did not take any save what they required; 
they hold none that the United States government has not 
been paid for. Land is being taken up to-day — arable land — 
in Utah. How then did the Church take possession of every 
arable acre? 



reed's speech. 35 

The same falsehood is in the assertion that they took pos- 
session of the forests. 

But even were all this true, these people did not rob the 
United States. They were claiming and taking land for 
themselves as citizens of the United States; claiming the land 
for their government, which then was at war with the nation 
— Mexico — to which the land belonged. What becomes of 
your wild talk in the light of these facts? 

Reed. That hierarchy has been kept up ever since its 
organization, inside of the United States and controlling one 
of its Territories. It is useless to call such a measure as that 
now before the House an assault upon a religion. It is an 
assault upon a band of men organized for the purpose of con- 
trolling exclusively the territory v/hich belonged to the people 
of the United States. 

Comment. You are singularly unfortunate in the selection 
of terms and phrases. A few moments ago you declared that 
the "keynote of the situation" was the Mormon "polity." 
What is the Mormon polity? A church polity, certainly, or 
there is no point to your keynote; and yet it is not "an assault 
upon a religion." You call it a "hierarchy," and yet it is not 
"an assault upon a religion." This "hierarchy," if it exist, 
exists by virtue of religious tenets which have made the 
hierarchy what it is. If you depose the men composing this 
hierarchy the problem is still unsolved, for others will be 
chosen in their stead. Is this your purpose? Is not the one 
idea to destroy the principles by which this "hierarchy," as 
you have called it, exists? If such is not the end in view, then 
your position is taken in imbecility. If it is your object, then 
it becomes "an assault upon a religion." Escape the dilemma 
if you can. 

Reed. It is an assault upon a band of men organized for 
the purpose of controlling exclusively the Territory which be- 
longed to the people of the United States. 

Comment. I ask the reader to pause on the sentence just 
quoted. It is from the lips of the leader of the Republican 
party in the National House of Representatives— a party com- 
posed of bands "of men organized for the purpose of control- 



36 reed's speech. 

ling exclusively the Territory" which belongs to the United 
States. As a leader of that party he endorses an assault upon 
a people who, even if he tell the truth concerning them, are 
doing in a very limited way what he and his party are doing 
on a magnificent scale. And it is thus he justifies the assault 
on Mormons. Words are powerless to describe the contempt 
which such an argument must beget; and to come from such a 
source! 

Reed. Polygamy is only one of the incidents of the situ- 
ation. * -^ * It affords me an illustration to show 
why we can not permit local control to be supreme in that 
region. You propose to punish a man for violating the laws 
of the United States with regard to polygamy. What is your 
practical situation? You bring him before a grand jury. If 
that grand jury were chosen as grand juries are selected else- 
where, the result would be that the grand jury room would 
be filled either with men who are committing the same crime, 
or with those who believe it would be a religious duty for 
them to commit it if they v/ere worth property enough to sus- 
tain themselves in doing so. If you bring the offender before 
a jury, you are met by twelve 'tnen m a box, the majority oj 
whom must necessarily be men who entirely sympathize with 
the ci'ime. * * * That illustrates one of the dif- 
ficulties which are in the way of the enforcement of the laws 
of the United States unless we take some such control of the 
matter as is proposed in this bill — unless we take hold of it by 
force of our governing power. 

Comment. We have it at last. Necessity is the great plea 
for this legislation. You must cure evil by doing wrong; and 
the argument is the same; ever necessity, which one writer 
has termed "the tyrant's devilish plea." 

I pass the insinuation that it is a religious duty for every 
Mormon who has money enough to commit the crime of 
polygamy, with two observations: First, the insinuation is 
untrue; second, it would be an excellent condition in other 
communities if only those persons committed crimes who had 
sufficient money. 

But your reference to the jury system is the point. If your 
accuracy on all topics were to be judged by your statements 
on this, you would prove absolutely worthless as an authority. 
You are a lawyer with politics as a profession. As a lawyer 



reed's speech. 37 

you should understand the law in the case you are trying. 
The very law to which the bill you were advocating was an 
amendment provides: 

That in any prosecution for bigamy, polygamy or unlawful cohabita- 
tion, under any statute of the United^ States, it shall be sufficient cause of 
challenge to any person drawn or summoned as a juryman or talesman, 
first that he is or has been living in the practice of bigamy, polygamy, or 
unlawful cohabitation with more than one woman, * * * or 
second, that he believes it right for a man to have more than one living 
and undivorced wife at the same time, or to live in the practice of 
cohabiting with more than one woman. 

And since it became a law it has been rigorously'enforced. 
No Mormon has been on a grand jury; no Mormon on a petit 
jury before which a man was being tried for polygamy or 
unlawful cohabitation. Yet on an unworthy assumption that 
the reverse was true, you advocated this bill. Only a few 
moments previous you said that the Mormon "polity" was 
"the keynote of the situation." Now you hold that the dif- 
ficulty in the way of punishing crimes is that juries could not, 
as you stated, but stated untruthfully, be packed by the ene- 
mies of the accused. The Supreme Court has decided that 
an open venire may be issued by United States courts in Utah. 
The service is made by the United States marshal or his depu- 
ties, every one of whom are non-Mormons, some apostates. 
In spite of these multiplied facts, in spite of your assertion 
that the Mormon ''polity" was the "keynote of the situation," 
you now urge, as a reason and a necessity for taking control 
of the Territory by the method proposed in the bill, a condi- 
tion of affairs in law which does not and did not exist. It is 
impossible to believe you did not know your statements were 
untrue. Will you withdraw your support when you learn 
that you were vilely wrong? Or was your talk purely for 
cheap theatrical effect? 

Reed. In addition to the reasons I have given, it is 
because some time or other we must admit these people to a 
fellowship in the States, and while we recognize, and I 
recognize to its fullest extent, the rights of local self gov ern- 
rnent, the right of the preservation of local institutions, while 
I admit these rights as among the strongest bulwarks of our 



38 reed's speech. 

liberty, nevertheless this country must be in the main 
homogeneous in thought and feeHng if it is to be a strong 
and solid nation. 

Comment. Again we find the right of local self govern- 
ment affirmed. It was evidently because of your respect for 
these rights, the "strongest bulwarks of our liberty," that you 
vote to take them away from a ptople against whom you can 
only forge untruths. Clearly you do love the principles. You 
have no idea how difficult it is to learn, from reading your 
speech, what you stand upon in your argument against 
Mormons. Successful issue can be taken on the propositon 
you advance on the necessity for homogeneity of thought and 
feeling in a nation so broad, with such varied interests, and so 
thoroughly impregnated with and wrapped up in the peculiar 
influences of immediate surroundings; but you are so uncer- 
tain and equivocal in all you say, it were an idle task. 

And on this testimony (the product of a champion of 
local self government), on this reasoning, a deliberative body 
passed a bill to place a community under the heels of petty 
tyrants and molecular assassians. If nothing better, or worse, 
can be adduced against this people and their customs, they 
must stand forever, your reasoning, exhortations and laws 
notwithstanding. 



tucker's speech. 39 



CHAPTER VI. 



HON. J. RANDOLPH TUCKER'S SPEECH.— HIS POSITION IN 1882, 
AND IN 1887.— CONSTITUTIONAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
A HEDGER.— THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER THE TERRI- 
TORIES. — ORIGIN OF PRESENT CLAIMS. — A DEMOCRAT 
TAKES THE POSITION WHICH A REPUBLICAN IS ASHAMED 
OF. — AN UNDEMOCRATIC DEMOCRAT. — DIRECT AND IN- 
DIRECT UNTRUTHS. — A VERSE ON COLONIZATION. — A NEW 
POINT ON LANDED RIGHTS.— MR. TUCKER, HENRY GEORGE 
AND ANARCHISTS AGREED.— A BAD BREAK ON THE SUB- 
JECT OF MONOPOLIES. 

IT is singular that a man of wisdom and legal learning 
should so soon revolutionize his views.because other men, 
as fallible as himself, have declared him to be wrong. To 
accept the decision of the United States Supreme Court as final, 
would be reasonable; but that a decision by that body is 
necessarily and elementarily correct does not follow. You pre- 
serve in your bill several features which, in your speech of 
1882, you emphatically declared to be flagrant violations of 
the Constitution. You objected to the oath formulated in 
that bill, yet you beat it out of existence by one you prepare 
yourself You did not like the law of 1882, because it punished 
parties by a deprivation of the rights of citizenship without 
due process of law, for the reason only that they were sus- 
pected of a wrong. But you made an oath that sought to 
deprive every man, even those never suspected of wrong-doing 
(and that without the most ordinary process of law) of a citizen's 
right. Yet you say, save in one point there is nothing "in 
conflict" between your position now and the one you held in 
1882. You declared in your speech against the Edmunds 
bill of March 22, 1882, that the "Constitution follows each 
colonist to bis new home in the Territories, and shields him 
from arbitrary power by whomsoever exercised." And five 
years later, you show your faith in this doctrine by devising an 
oath which is designed to prevent every Mormon from voting; 



40 tucker's speech. 

but in view of the possibility of this weapon missing fire, 
you show your love of the rights of citizenship by giving to 
an imported and imposed governor power to appoint all 
officers, save a few which are accorded the President of the 
United States, thus robbing the colonist of the rights which 
the Constitution, as you declare, has promised shall follow 
him to his new home; and you place him at the mercy of one 
man. In the following words you inveighed against the 
commission of five which that bill provided: "Given a board 
which is to regulate suffi-age, to hold elections, to make 
returns thereof, and all this without appeal, and there will be 
no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that, for the time being, 
140,000 citizens of the United States will be subject to an 
autocratic oligarchy as absolute in its authority and capable of 
achieving as much unhappiness for its subjects, by the plunder 
of their property, the deprivation of their liberties, and the 
violation of their Constitutional rights as ever existed among 
any people in ancient or modern times." And you ask, 
before this, "Is such a law Constitutional?" This Commis- 
sion, true to your prediction, usurped authority. The 
Supreme Court of the United States so decided. But what 
have you done in your bill? Destroyed so vicious a Commission? 
Ah, no! With wonderful statesmanslike foresight, you have 
taken away from them almost entirely all the work which the 
Edmunds bill gave them to do, and you have crowned this 
effort by continuing indefinitely in power this Commission, 
which five years previously you had denounced as unconstitu- 
tional. And in one point only, perhaps, we hear you say, 
was your position then in conflict with that you occupy now. 

But say you, "the Supreme Court has decided these ques- 
tions." Does that relieve your conscience, or is it any less 
your sworn duty to oppose this class of legislation now, if your 
convictions are unchanged, than it was before the Supreme 
Court rendered that decision. Your opinions and your judg- 
ment are your own, as to what is or is not constitutional. An 
infinitude of decisions by an infinitude of Supreme Courts 
will never swerve from his opposition a man who truly and 
conscientiously believes legislation wrong; and while the 
court of last resort determines a question as to its legal stand- 



tucker's speech. 41 

ing, it does not, and cannot make right that which is wrong, 
nor constitutional that which is inherently opposed to the 
genius of the constitution. It merely ends a legal contro- 
versy. It establishes a legal fact. It does not make an eter- 
nal truth. The proposition is thus: You were right when 
you declared the Edmunds bill of 1882 unconstitutional, or 
you were wrong. If you were right then, you are right still 
despite the decision of the Supreme Court. If you were 
wrong then, you had continued wrong though the United 
States Supreme Court had, times without end, affirmed you to 
be right. 

You hedged. Unmanfully, and without stating that your 
convictions had undergone a change, you took refuge behind 
a Supreme Court decision and on its strength would lead all 
to believe a change of heart had come over you. But if thus 
you change, no longer boast of being a constitutional lawyer, 
no longer plead capacity and a life-long study of a sacred 
instrument. Confess yourself blown about by every wind of 
doctrine that hies from a republican quarter and throw to the 
dogs your study of a life. Yet there is but one point of con- 
flict! One point! Yes, but one! The changing, in an hour, and 
at the point of a personal incentive, in the hope of political 
preferment, of a life-long protestation of democratic constitu- 
tional interpretation, in behalf of one given by rank republi- 
cans. De Quincy, I believe, has said, that the characters of 
men are practically formed at twenty-eight years of age. Mr. 
Tucker proclaims himself the pitiful exception which estab- 
lishes the rule. 

Tucker. The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make 
all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory^or other property 
belonging to the United States. (Constitution United States, Article IV, 
section 3, clause 2). 

I desire to emphasize the words "territory belonging to the 
United States." It is their territory. It belongs to the 
United States; to them as copartners. 

Comment. It is a fact that no democrat can support 
legislation of this character without forcing himself to accept 
constitutional interpretations to which democracy is funda- 
mentally opposed, and which are the bulwarks of republican 



42 tucker's speech. 

gospel. How this definition was given to the clause of the 
Constitution now quoted, will be seen from the following, the 
authority being no less a person than Judge Jeremiah Black. 

"Mr, Thaddeus Stevens, the great leader and driver of that day, v^^ho 
ruled Congress with a sway that was boundless, thought it best in the 
beginning to assure his followers that the Constitution had given to 
Congress this power over the Territories. To prove it he showed them 
the following provision: 

'The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful 
rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property of the 
United States, and nothing in this Constitution shall be construed so as to 
prejudice any claims of the United States or of any particular State.' 

"That this expressed nothing, and meant nothing, and granted nothing 
to Congress, except the power to exercise for the General Government its 
purely proprietary rights over the land and goods it possessed, whether 
lying within the States or outside of them, was so perfectly manifest that 
Mr. Stevens became disgusted with his own argument; he freely expressed 
his profound contempt for it, and for all who pretended to believe it. 
Having drawn them into it by his glozing speech, his fierce invective 
lashed them out again; and he so 'chastised them with the valor of his 
tongue,' that they feared to speak of scruples any more. He did not, 
because he could not, furnish them any other pretence to stand upon; and 
he told them plainly and frankly that he would not stultify himself by 
professing to think his measure constitutional. 'This,' said he, 'is legisla- 
tion outside of the Constitution.' It was passed, and Congress inaugurated 
the reign of the thief and the kidnapper by an acknowledged usurpation." 

Strange things are from the womb of time. A life-long 
professing democrat, from a state that has produced great 
men, accepts the interpretation of a constitutional ""restriction 
given by a rank republican who was ashamed of it when he 
made it. This is Mr. Tucker's right; but the interpretation is 
not democratic; no man can believe it and be a democrat, let 
him protest as much as he will. 

Tucker. But there is another and greater constitutional 
purpose on the part of this Union in holding that Territory; 
and that is to keep it intact for the colonization of our own 
people. 

Comment. There is a direct and an indirect untruth in this 
allegation. The Constitution, by providing for the enfran- 



tucker's speech. 43 

chisement of aliens and by extending to them all the rights 
that are accorded to native-born citizens, save one— the right 
to become President of the United States— made a bid to the 
inhabitants of all the earth to come and occupy and bless 
these boundless acres— to win them as long as they willed 
under precisely such conditions as were imposed upon native- 
born citizens. As a result, traceable directly to this offer, you 
are enabled to boast of this as the greatest nation on earth, 
and of its form of government as the fruit of 1900 years 
patient and upward development. Take away the immediate 
and collateral work of enfranchised aliens and what sort of a 
nation would you have? Thus you state a direct untruth when 
you assert that the greater constitutional purpose on the part 
of this Union in holding the territory "is to keep it intact as a 
domain for the colonization of our own people.'' Advocate 
this theory in some Irish quarter of New York, or any other 
State, and note its effect. You dare not. 

The indirect untruth is in the inference you would have 
drawn from the observation preceding the one just criticised, 
viz: that the Mormons who colonized Utah were not our "own 
people." You should brush up on Mormon pioneer records. 
You will find Utah to have been pioneered almost exclusively 
by men born in this country who were the children of parents 
themselves born of American parents. And for !o-day, why 
Utah has a larger percentage of native born population than 
any of the northwestern, western and southwestern States and 
Territories. 

TuckeR. It [the land, territory] does not belong to the 
first little squad of men who choose to pounce down upon it and 
say: "we are monarchs of all we survey, our rights there are 
none to dispute." 

Comment. It is very unlikely they will boast their "rights 
there are none to dispute" while the Tucker species continues 
to evolve. But if not the first settlers, who, in this country, or 
where the rights of man have a semblance of recognition, has 
a right to the land these earliest settlers have blessed by 
making it habitable? Henry George, consistent with his 
earnest and oft-expressed belief, denies that priority in land 
is a right. His is called the gospel of robbery. He is largely 



44 tucker's speech. 

denounced as a fanciful and chimerical theorist. Mr. Tucker, 
in defiance of his avowed principles, asserts the doctrine 
regarding the Mormons. The assertion is unchallenged. It 
is applauded. Mr. Tucker is proclaimed a statesman. Queer. 

Tucker. It belongs to the United States, and they have a 
duty to perform in seeing that this property shall not be 
monopolized by any class of men or by any Church. 

Comment. Here again we have the doctrine of Henry 
George, and of the anarchist, and we have also the custom- 
ary inferential falsehood; that is, it must be inferred that the 
land in Utah is monopolized by the Church. If you could 
prove that fact, if you had just ground to believe this asser- 
tion true, would an inferential deduction only have been your 
method of revealing a truth so damaging to the Mormon 
Church? Would not you have blazoned it forth in the con- 
centrated eloquence of many generations of eloquent Tuckers? 
I wot. 

But Henry George asserts in substance that all land in the 
United States is now monopolized by a class. If your argu- 
ment holds good against the Mormons, then his holds good 
against the rest of the country, for all land is held under the 
same conditions: government patents according the titles. If 
the theory of the anarchist be true, every^ landowner is, in a 
degree, a monopolist. It you are right, that land in Utah is 
monopolized by Mormons, if that is monopoly, how can the 
anarchist be wrong, since your doctrines accord perfectly? 
And since you have adopted this line of reasoningf, then you 
will doubtless be able to explain why you do not make legis- 
lation on this subject general instead of confining it alone to 
Utah? I neither affirm nor deny the correctness of these 
theories. The purpose here is to show with what willingness 
the country will accept declarations from a legislator on a 
land subject when it relates to Mormons, and with what alac- 
rity it rejects the same declarations when made by Henry 
George, or by an anarchist. 

Tucker. They [the United States] have a duty to per- 
form in seeing that this property shall not be monopolized by 
any special class of men, or by any church. 



tucker's speech. 45 

Comment. The United States has no such duty, or if it 
have, it is a duty more "honored in the breach than in the 
observance." If what you say be true, you should impeach 
the officials of government for failing to check monopolies in 
land; and if there be no laws for the execution of this Con- 
stitutional duty, then as a member of several Congresses 
which failed to enact measures that would give officials power 
to check these monopolies, you should be impeached for high 
crimes, for negligence. To what a lofty pinnacle you soar 
when you assert yourself against Mormons and their reh'g- 
ion. 

As a lawyer you know that land bought from the United 
States government, and paid for, belongs to those who have 
bought and paid for it. They may sell it or give it to whom- 
soever they please, to be used for whatever purpose they 
please, if there be no law against such purpose. The United 
States has no more just power to dispossess them or to deny 
their right to dispose of the land as shall suit them, than the 
government of Great Britain has. As chairman of the House 
Judiciary Committee — which gave birth to the monstrosity you 
were championing during this speech — as one who, according 
to your own declaration, not only listened to some thirty hours' 
of oral argument, but read all you could get oh the subject 
you know there was not a "jot or tittle" of evidence presented 
before your committee to show that a single foot of the land 
or "territory" owned by Mormons, or by the Mormon Church, 
had not been legally bought and paid for by honest money, 
had not been blessed by the honest toil of Mormons. But, 
like a pettifogger, you preferred applause before principle. 
With pettifogging instincts you could make counterfeit utter- 
ances, framed to deceive. This you did to win the unmerited 
support and excite the admiration of your uninformed and 
prejudiced compatriots of the House, as well as in the hope 
of commanding the plaudits of an unenlightened and im- 
passioned country. 



46 tucker's speech. 



CHAPTER VII. 

tucker's speech continued. — ANOTHER REASON WHICH IS 
LAUGHABLE. — "TERRITORY" AND "TERRITORIES." — CAN ' 
CONGRESS SELL A TERRITORY?— A LOGICAL DEDUCTION 
FROM ABSURD REASONING. — "a FELLOW FEELING." — 
POWERS OF CONGRESS. — INSUFFERABLE NONSENSE. — 
EVEN OF A MORMON. — A WORD ON BELIEF. — INDIFFER- 
ENCE TO IT. — A GRAND DICTATOR AND A QUACK STATES- 
MAN. — THE GREAT POWER OF BELIEF. 

TUCKER. But, sir, there is another reason why Congress 
has the right to govern the Territories. Congress has 
power "to admit new States into this Union." (Constitu- 
tion United States, Article iv, section. 3, clause one.) The 
United States are bound "to guarantee to every State a 
republican form of government." 

Comment. Were not the subject one of so great import, 
it would be extremely laughable to note the frantic efforts 
you make to justify your ill-chosen position. The section you 
quote refers to the admission of States into the Union and 
provides, in terms, that Congress shall not be allowed to 
admit any State to the Union on any other than a republican 
form of government. This clause, section, or article, is 
absolutely without reference, the most distant, to the govern- 
ment of the Territories. The attempt to deduce from this, 
justification — another reason — for the government of Territories 
by Congress, is either a direct intimation that you were 
pleading to imbeciles or that you plead like an imbecile. What- 
ever one may think of the former supposition, I doubt if any 
one who reads this argument by you, will challenge the latter 
conclusion. 

Tucker. We thus see, that in addition to the power of 
regulating the Territories''' etc., etc. 

Comment. Ah! you have caught a woodchuck. The 
Constitution says: 



tucker's speech. 47 

"The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful 
rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property, belonging 
to the United States." 

And on this you assert that "in addition to the power of 
regulating the Territories," etc., Congress shall admit States 
with certain guarantees. The Constitution speaks of "terri- 
tory," and you put it "Territories." Is there no difference 
here? Are you prepared to stake your reputation as a 
democrat, as a Constitutional lawyer, as a statesman, as a 
sane individual upon this interpretation? Congress may sell, 
dispose of (as it does) the territory it owns, as it may of 
other property, as it may of old cannon, broken down vessels, 
useless machinery. On this assumption may it sell one of the 
Territories to a foreign nation, or to an individual? If your 
position in this respect be well taken, you cannot deny that 
Congress has such power. The Constitution does not 
guarantee to every Territory, in direct terms, a republican 
form of government, though one does read in your speech of 
1882 that "the Constitution follows each colonist to his new 
home in the Territory, and shields him from arbitrary powers, 
by whomsoever exercised." This was five years ago; but you 
have changed. You take, on your unequivocal ground, an 
absolutely reverse view now. It is found in that section of 
your bill where the people are deprived of the right to elect 
certain officers and the power to appoint them is placed in 
the hands of a governor, whom the people know not, to whom 
this autocrat is in nowise responsible. That is not republican- 
ism. It is despotism, in its vilest form — vilest in that it comes 
under the guise of freedom, under the cloak and protection 
of free government. Now if Congress has the right to dispose 
of the Territories of the United States, if as you hold also by 
very act, that a republican form of government is not 
guaranteed a Territory, what is there to prevent Congress 
from selling the Territory of Utah, holns bolus, to some 
Croesus, who will crown himself king? Nothing! Under the 
heavens, if you reason aright, there is nothing! But you say 
this is absurd! So say I. The absurdity, however, is not in 
the result deduced, but in the reasoning by which such a 
deduction becomes possible. 



48 tucker's speech. 

Even if all this be admitted as rational and good Constitu- 
tional construction, there arises still another objection. If 
Congress can regulate "the Territories," as property, it does 
not follow therefrom that it may govern the people. The 
people of Utah have bought United States land under con- 
ditions so favorable as induced purchase. Congress has just 
as much right to stop the natural sources of water by which 
the land is fructified, and because of which the land was pur- 
chased, as it has to alter the conditions (those of free govern- 
ment, and the right of the people to inspect the acts of and to 
hold responsible those who tax and control the taxes) under 
which the land was first made desirable. This should be 
good law. But whether good law or not, it is eternal justice. 
It is the foundation of republican institutions; and the man 
who would, however slightly, subvert the doctrine, is a 
traitor to his country, and the fate of traitors should be meted 
out to him. 

The evident purpose of this utterance is to give the im- 
pression that a Republican form of government does not now 
exist in Utah. You also design to give the impression that it 
is your purpose to secure this boon to the people of Utah, 
and you go about it in a characteristic way — by depriving 
them of the last vestige of the form of government your soul 
yearns to establish. There is a wonderful sympathy between 
this democrat and the republican from Maine — Reed, They 
are both clamoring for local self government and freedom. 
They attempt to secure it by the same methods: by robbing 
the people of the tattered remnant of self-government that 
now clothes their suffering bodies. Verily, the lion and the 
lamb have lain down together. 'Tis Byron writes: 

So well the subject suits his noble mind, 
He brays, the laureat of the long ear'd kind. 

Tucker. Congress then is charged with the duty and 
vested with the power, by necessary and proper laws, to 
organize the people of the Territories into distinct communi- 
ties, to govern them as shall seem best and proper, so that they 
may in due time be fitted to enter the Union as equal States 
with their older sisters, clothed with a vesture of a Republi- 
can form of government. The powers of Congress to govern 



tucker's speech. 



49 



the Territories thus clearly springs from these clauses of the 
Constitution by irresistible deduction. 

Comment. Not by "irresistible deduction," but by insuffer- 
able nonsense. The theory has long been that the Territories 
weregovernment wards— wards not because the people did not 
possess Constitutional rights, but simply because they were 
presumably too weak to walk alone. The government was 
not designed to take from the people in Territories, but to 
extend a helping hand. That was the theory. But you have 
changed it; they are not now wards, but slaves, serfs over 
whom for masters have been placed broken down political 
hacks, too vile for further use where they were known. A 
disgrace and a detriment, they are shipped to the Territories 
where they assimilate with the people as the hawk assimilates 
with the barnyard biped— by devouring it. The Territories 
have thus become the Botany Bay of the country, but most ot 
all has Utah been inflicted with an infectious and scoundrelly 
set; and it is thus "the Constitution follows each colonist to 
his new home in the Territory, and shields him from arbitrary 
power by whomsoever exercised." 

The italics in the preceding extract are mine. The words 
are italicised because they are false; because designed if 
guided by any judgment whatever in the framing, to convey a 
false idea. Congress has not the right to do what it "shall 
deem best and proper" on any subject. If it has, what is the 
purpose of Constitutional restrictions? You say this to justify 
a clearly and malignantly unconstitutional attack on a people 
you hate. It is because Congress has not the power to do as 
it "shall deem best and proper" in any concern of the country 
that Tuckers are developed and given seats in Congress. 
They are placed there to do the behest of the people, with, 
however, this sworn reservation, that the will of the people 
must be tolerated only when consistent with that much abused, 
greatly maligned and sadly ignored instrument, the Constitu- 
tion of the United States. You frequently deny, as the Con- 
gressio7ial Record bears witness, the right of Congress to do 
certain things which many people desire to be done, and 
which many members of that sacred and awe-inspiring body, 
the House of Representatives, yearn to have done. Are you 



50 tucker's speech. 

in this, as in Supreme Court decisions? Do you surrender 
your judgment to the will of the majority? But you are not 
so guided. You have declared, time and again, you would 
not vote for certain measures. No matter how overwhelming 
the opposition, you would defend that grand old instrument 
the Constitution. In the face of this, you assert the right of 
Congress to do as it "shall deem best and proper" with the 
Territories. Congress may only, in right, go so far as Con- 
stitutional restrictions permit. The limit was more than 
reached in your villainous production, passed by the House, 
but which even a Republican Senate, with all its notorious 
disrespect of Constitutional limitations, could not and did not 
sanction. It was as a prostitute reproving the wantonness of 
a woman of reputed virtue. 

Tucker. For my own part, Mr. Speaker, I would vote 
against the bill I have reported if I could be convinced that 
there was one thing in it which trenches upon the conscience 
of any man — even of a Monnon. 

Comment. I doubt if anyone will believe you. It is sad 
that a man whose life has been devoted to the public service 
must proclaim his own honesty. But why say: ''Even of a 
Mormon!" Impartial men have no use for such expressions. 
Men, not impartial, who feel themselves so, who announce 
themselves partial by such utterances, are legally and in 
sound justice recognized as incompetent to determine a 
matter fairly. The very expression wherein you profess your 
candor, damns you by the rank bias it discloses. Truly "the 
legs of the lame are not equal." 

Tucker. I do not care what the Mormon believes. But 
he must not believe and act upon his belief, if it violates the 
right of any other man or violates the power of the govern- 
ment and its laws for the peace and good order of society. 
That is all. I do not object to his saying that he or some 
other man ought to have two wives or more; but I do not 
intend to let him or that other man have more than one. If 
you are not a polygamist in act I do not care what you believe; 
but I do care very much what you do. When religious belief 
breaks out into the overt act of polygamy it is time for the 
civil government to interfere to preserve the peace, purity, 
and good order of society. 



tucker's speech. 51 

Comment. This may be true. Considering your glib 
sophistries one should perhaps believe you. Let any man 
read the speech of Senator Call, made in the Senate, February 
18, on the infinitely milder bill as it became a law,>nd escape, 
if he can, (despite your witless talk to the opposite effect) 
the conviction that in every line the bill was conceived and 
framed to affect belief. 

Here is a lawyer, a legislator, I presume a logician, who 
declares himself indifferent to the belief of a people — when 
every act is but the clothing, the body formed about the silent 
or the uttered thought of man. As though man could believe 
and that belief fail to manifest itself. He who says he cares 
not what a man believes, if he lies, should be discharged from 
public trust; if he speaks the truth, he should be tried 
at the bar of humanity as one unworthy respect, as one 
indifferent to the good of mankind. Men act, work, and 
strive because of their beliefs. They live so. They cannot 
live otherwise. 

The powers of all just governments end when to every 
citizen is preserved the right to do as he wills without 
infringing on the rights of others. Man will think as he 
chooses. This you cannot prevent; and the loud proclama- 
tion that you are willing to accord him this as a blessed boon, 
is the confession of an arrogant and intolerant spirit, ill- 
becoming a statesman or a philosopher. When became you 
grand dictator that you may accord this right and withhold 
that, as it pleases your self-sufficiency? "I do not object to 
his saying that he or some other man ought to have two wives 
or more; but I do not intend to let him or that other man 
have more than one." Ah, me! We would be great, and 
with boast and pomp parade our fleeting and tinsel power. 
We that be so weak. All the Tuckers that ever lived or may 
yet live cannot down a principle, be it bad or good. If it be 
bad, in God's hands, they may be instruments in counter- 
acting its evil effects. If it be good, the princple will grind 
into oblivious powder the whole race of Tuckers, and all 
others if they strive against it. Yet you say, I will not allow 
this, but I may consent to that! Great talk for one whose 
political vestures were even then in tatters and threadbare! 



52 TUCKER S SPEECH. 

Strange words to come from a man who, by them, widens the 
rent in his own character. 

For the moment, let me again revert to the vague and 
superficial talk of one who says, he cares not what a man 
believes. The wise physician, if not too late, endeavors at all 
times to remove the cause that there may be no disease what- 
ever. Thought, belief, these are the cadse of all human 
action. If men think aright, if they believe aright, it follows, 
as the night the day, they cannot act a-wrong. Bad acts 
are the inevitable outcome of bad thoughts and bad faith. 
But this philospher, this statesman, tells us he cares not 
for our belief. He, the physician who says: The cause is a 
matter of perfect indifference to me. Sufficient if I attend 
the disease which the cause has produced. This the states- 
man who whipped the American House of Representatives 
into mob fury, wild, unreasoning, blind. This, he who allowed 
himself to be carried away by the whirlwind of his passion 
till his own madness infected all within the sound of his 
voice. Ah, we have fallen upon remarkable days! And this 
body passes judgment upon a people whose fault is that 
believing, that in saying a great belief means something, they 
are willing that belief shall work out its legitimatejesults. ^ 



tucker's speech. 53 



CHAPTER VIII. 

tucker's speech continued. — HE FLIES TO HOLY WRIT. — 
THE savior's words VILELY FALSIFIED. — POLYGAMY CON- 
DEMNED, DIVORCE CONCONED. — A SHIFTING FOUNDATION 
FOR A DECENT CIVILIZATION. — THE JEWS AS CIVILIZERS. — 
WHAT IS A DECENT CIVILIZATION? — MONOGAMY AS A FOUN- 
DATION FOR CIVILIZATION IN THE LIGHT OF INFIDEL 
GREECE, PAGAN ROME AND REVOLUTIONARY FRANCE. — 
WHERE MONOGAMY SPRANG FROM AND WHEN. — PHYSICAL 
AND SPIRITUAL DEATH. — POLYGAMY AND CHRIST'S TEACH- 
INGS. — A SILENT BIBLE. — THE REDEEMER LIBELED. 

BUT you say that polygamy is a crime, and you must needs 
fly to Holy Writ to prove it. 

Tucker. Now, Mr. Speaker, that being the power of Con- 
gress, what is the duty of Congress to do? What is polyg- 
amy? It is a crime by the law of every State in Christendom. 
Ever since Christ interpreted the Judaic law and gave it to us 
in his own express words, it has not only been a sin against 
God, but has been made a crime by every Christian society. 
Mark His words: 

"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave 
to his wife, and they twain" — 

Not a whole bundle of them, 

"They twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but 
one flesh." 

Comment. Now you assume the role of theologian. But 
a theologian should, above all persons, be sure of his ground 
The fact is that, in the words you quote, the Savior did not 
make the faintest reference to polygamy. It was not polyg- 
amy he was denouncing as a sin in this quotation, but the 
sin against God of divorcement — a sin which previls to-day, 
the commission of which is "aided and abetted" by the laws 
of the State you represent, a sin which I dare you to denounce 
in the language you employ against polygamy. Not content 
with misrepresenting your fellows, in a mad hatred of Mor- 
mons you misrepresent your Savior. Read Matthew xix, and 
blush. You cry Christ and sanction divorce! You sustain 
divorce and condemn that against which neither the Father nor 



54 TUCKER S SPEECH. 

the Son has spoken a word! You plead Christianity and yet 
distort and misapply, for the purpose of enforcing your 
peculiar ideas, the words of Him who founded the religious 
system you profess. Were Mormon ever guilty of such base, 
such corrupt methods, verily he would merit denunciation by 
mountebanks in politics, quacks in religion — by Tuckers by 
the score. 

But even did the words you quote apply to polygamy, you 
state what is untrue, when you declare: 

Tucker. Ever since Christ uttered that language, all of 
the Japhetic races have adopted monogamy as the only 
foundation of a decent civilization. 

Comment. The Jews were and are the chosen people of 
God. Have they not a "decent civiHzation?" They rejected 
the Christ and His interpretation of the Judaic law. Was it 
because of the Savior's words that monogamy became "the 
only foundation of a decent civilization" among this remark- 
able race? or are there different foundations for a decent 
civilization among the different races? 

But the Hebrews, being descended from Shem, you may 
hold to be outside this criticism of your position. The real 
and underlying point in this utterence by you is that monog- 
amy is the only foundation of a decent civilization, whether 
among the Japhetic race or not. If that is not your broad 
ground, then there is absolutely nothing in what you say, 
since it makes no difference what the race, if the foundation 
be such that a decent civilization can be built upon it. Your 
point, therefore, must be that ever since the words you quote 
from the Savior were uttered by Him, monogamy has been 
the only foundation of a decent civilization; and it became so 
because He uttered these words. This must be your point for 
the reason that it would be childishly absurd to use His name 
or quote His words,if it were not designed to make Him respon- 
sible for your position. Therefore, I ask if the Jews have not a 
"decent civilization?" Read the history of this most remarkable 
race, and wherever the blood that courses through their veins 
has appeared in the nations of the earth, there have followed 
the blessings of enlightened civilization, as flowers and fruits 



TUCKER S SPEECH. 55 

and abundant harvests follow the April showers and the sum- 
mer's sun. They are the pioneers of civilization. They have 
ever been; and through them the children of Japhet, and all 
others, have been and yet are to be blest. Have not they a 
•'decent civilization?" Having a "decent civilization," did it 
depend upon the words of the Christ whom they rejected and 
his enunciation of them now nigh 1900 years ago, even ad- 
mitting their application against polygamy? Was there not a 
"decent civilization" among that race when God spoke to, 
talked with and blessed the father of that race — Abraham, a 
polygamist? and whom holy men called the friend of God. 
Was there not something of a "decent civilization" — a founda- 
tion for it — among a race that produced a Moses, a law-giver 
with such inspired insight into the eternally just that all the 
"glory" of this age, of which you boast so much and so 
loudly, can devise nothing to supersede the product of that 
"barbarous age?" How, if monogamy, or Christ's words, as 
applied by you against polygamy, or both, be the only founda- 
tion of a "decent civilization," comes it that the civilization 
and intelligence of this age cannot go beyond the product of 
a mind surrounded by "barbarism?" Neither monogomy nor 
polygamy is the only foundation of a decent civilization; no, 
nor are the words of Christ as you have quoted, nor is a 
decent civilization confined to the Japhetic race. A "decent 
civilization," or any kind of a civilization is only possible 
where there exists a recognition of a Supreme Being, and 
civilization exists in degrees, as this principle is accepted in 
degrees. That profoundly observed, that ardently believed, 
and whether polygamy, monogamy or celibacy be enjoined, 
there must be a "decent civilization." Without that, there 
cannot be a "decent civilization" or any foundation, though 
you marry but once, a thousand times, or not at all. 

But after all is said, what kind of a "civilization" is it that 
is not "decent?" Oh, the vanity and vexation that comes to 
one so self-inflated as to imagine he may say what he pleases, 
and it falls upon the ears of those, insincere and infidel as 
himself, as holy writ upon the devout believer in the great 
Catholic Church. A "decent civilization!" As though a civili- 
zation could be anything but decent. Nations are civilized in 



5^ tucker's speech. 

proportion as they have respect for Hfe and cherish principles 
of virtue. Greece and Rome had a civilization — so-called — 
founded upon the monogamous system, and so founded in 
the Japhetic race before, and long before, Christ spoke the 
words you quote. Do you want to compare their vile and 
filthy orgies, their disrespect for life, their indifference to 
children, with the customs that have prevailed among polyg- 
amous races? France had such a civilization during the 
revolution, when the most notorious harlots were placed, 
nude and shameless, on the highest altars and in the most 
sacred places, and the people commanded to bow down and 
adore them. Do you include this, when you say that ever 
since Christ uttered the words employed by you, "monogamy 
has been the only foundation of a decent civilization!" 
France was monogamous then, France is monogamous to-day. 
Shame on you! Shame! Find, if you can, a parallel to those 
scenes anywhere in the history of polygamous nations. Yet 
you can prate about monogamy and a "decent civilization." 

Monogamy did not become the rule of civilization among 
the Japhetic race, (decent or indecent, it matters not to the 
purpose of this argument) ever since the Savior uttered the 
words you quoted regarding "they twain" and "one flesh." 
Not until the third century was polygamy condemned, mon- 
ogamy enjoined. Monogomy was made a rule by a church 
which every Protestant, by the very nature of his faith, is com- 
pelled to hold unworthy and apostate. To the Catholic 
church we owe monogamy as well as a vast deal of celibacy, 
and not to Christ. Wise men have long ceased hoping to 
find in the words of God anything condemnatory of polyg- 
amy. But a world which denounces this practice, which 
names itself civilized. Christian, sanctions divorce and con- 
doles and forgives adultery — two of the most heinous offenses 
known to the law of God. Divorcement meant to separate 
that which could not be disjoined without deathly loss. 
"Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman 
without the man in the Lord." Hence, to be divorced was 
spiritual death, than which even adultery is hardly more fatal. 
Adultery was punished with physical death. Even the un- 
willingness of the Savior to condemn the wretched woman 



tucker's speech. 57 

caught in the act, has left unaltered the law of God eter- 
nally condeming this great sin. "Our civilization," which 
endures with unaffected complaisance, these violations of 
God's law, which condones acts that in the times when God 
was known, meant death spiritually and death physically) 
now condemns that which not only produces life, but that 
also which neither the Father nor the Son ever condemned. 

The Savior came among a nation that practiced polygamy 
as of divine permission, if not direction. He denounced 
murder, theft, lying, blasphemy, hypocrisy, divorcement, 
adultery, in terms that still speak in trumpet tones. He bade 
the people to repent and come to him that they might find 
rest; but in all His recorded words He failed to lay it down as 
a condition precedent to their receiving His favor, or the 
blessings promised from obedience to the Gospel, that they 
must abandon polygamy. He never told them it was obnox- 
ious in the sight of God. Neither did his apostles, nor disci- 
ples, speaking by the inspiration of the Father, ever do so. 
Not from Christ, nor His apostles, nor disciples came the con- 
demnation of polygamy. From the Catholic Church, which 
to-day enjoins celibacy among a large number of its most 
honored and devoted believers, in the third century, sprang 
the opposition to polygamy; and, in wild times, even to mar- 
riage of all kinds as degrading and sinful. The result! Well, 
look out upon your monogamous world, with its licentiousness, 
divorces, adulteries, prostitution and disease ! Look out upon 
it, and if you can still be proud of what you now boast, then 
indeed is shame a dead thing among the children of men. It 
is untrue that the Savior founded monogamy. It is a libel, a 
fraud to say the Savior, in the words you quote from Him, 
had any reference to polygamy. A Christian, a man, had 
never dared speak so falsely of his Redeemer. 



tucker's speech. 58 



CHAPTER IX. 

tucker's speech continued. — THE NUCLEUS OF THE STATE, 
AND THE CHRISTIAN HOME. — BUNCOMBE. — HISTORY PER- 
SISTENTLY FALSIFYING. — A CONTRADICTION. — THE GREAT 
COMMANDMENT. — THE SAVIOR OR MR. TUCKER, WHICH 
IS RIGHT? — HOMES IN UTAH. — A FEW TUCKER PARADOXES. 
— A SINGULAR MOTHER DEMANDED. — AN ASSUMPTION. — 
DEPARTING FROM GOD. — CO-EXISTING MONOGAMY AND 
POLYGAMY. — WHAT DAVID SAID. — A COUNTERFEIT CHRIS- 
TIANITY. — A FALSEHOOD NAILED. — DELIBERATE NON- 
SENSE. 

TUCKER. The nucleus of the State is the home of the 
people. What is the home of the people? The one 
man and the one woman; the one man loving supremely 
none but her; and the woman loving supremely none but her 
husband. ^ * * That is the foundation of your polity; 
without it there would not be a Christian State in the Union 
fit to live in. * * "^ In its loss we lose all which makes 
modern civilization the glory of our race. 

Comment. This is simply buncombe. Are there no 
homes, is there no purity, among polygamous races? Singular, 
if the home is the basis of the State (as we assert in these 
times and assert falsely in one sense) if the endurance of the 
State depends upon the purity of the home, that polygamous 
nations, which, according to this view, cannot possess pure 
homes, should be longest lived. How is it that history will 
persist in falsifying, if there are no homes save monogamous 
ones? 

There are several statements in this paragraph equally 
irrational and untrue. The Savior, to whom you appealed 
but a minute before, in reply to a question as to the greatest 
commandment or duty, declared: 

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all 
thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great command- 
ment." 



TUCKERS SPEECH. 59 

You are speaking of the Christian home, and speak of it 
as the nucleus of the Christian State. The Christian home 
and the Christian, State, to be such, are built upon a supreme 
love of God, the man being, if necessary, required to le^ive 
home, wife and children to follow the Savior. That is the 
principle upon which the Christian home is built. Yet you 
can assert that it is founded upon "the one man and the one 
woman, the one man loving siiprejnely her, and the woman 
Xov'mg supremely none but her husba?id.'' It is impossible to 
place the slightest confidence in one who can speak so loosely 
on matters of such grave significance. Either you are wrong 
or the Savior is. If the Savior be right, the beginning of wel- 
fare to the individual, to the family, and thus to the State is 
the supreme love of God. This being true, the purity of the 
home, nor the safety of the State does not depend upon the sys- 
tem of marriage which prevails, but on love of and obedience 
to God, wherever it may lead. If the Savior be wrong, then 
your whole argument against polygamy falls, for it rests upon 
His words. I cannot let you hold Him up to me as an au- 
thority one minute and the next have you contradict Him. 
You have gotten yourself in a bad fix. And thus polygamy is 
reasoned to be bad. Verily, whom the gods would destroy, 
they first make mad. 

Tucker. But you may say, "are there no homes in Utah?" 
yes; but what kind? Homes in which the heart of the hus- 
band is divided out and diffused among so many wives that it 
is lost when it gets to any one, (laughter) the father of a 
number of distinct sets of children, the wives being mothers 
each of only one set. What a partnership; what a home in 
which to rear children! Why gentlemen, that is the basis of a 
civilization that went out twenty centuries ago, everywhere 
except in Asia. Ours is the basic principle of the civilization 
of to-day; theirs of the ancient pre-Christian period of the 
world's history. With monogamy we are in the lead of progress 
in the twentieth century of the Christian era. Introduce 
polygamy and we turn back the dial of our destiny — we 
obliterate the Christian era, and turn from the light and glory 
of to-day to the gloom and barbarism of two thousand years 
ago! That social condition is an Asiatic exotic! ours, a plant of 
European-American growth. They are as diverse and incom- 
patible as light and darkness. They cannot co-exist, they 
must be divorced, or one or the other must be extirpated. 



6o tucker's speech. 

The upas tree of polygamy is death to a modern Christian 
society or to a modern Christian commonwealth. 

Comment. As you never attempt to reason, it is difficult 
to reason with you. You simply assert. Therefore it is simply 
necessary to deny. But let us look at a few of the sentences 
contained in this remarkable paragraph. Speaking of the 
homes in Utah and the hearts of husbands being "diffused 
among so many wives," you say; "the wives being mothers 
each of only one set" of children. How many sets of children 
do you expect a Mormon wife to be the mother of? 

Again: "That is the basis of a civilization that went out 
twenty centuries ago everywhere but in Asia?" If this be true 
how does polygamy happen to be the custom in European 
Turkey. 

Again: "With monogamy we are in the lead of progress 
in the twentieth century of the Christian era." Though as- 
sumed, the fact stated does not prove the progress you boast 
to be due to monogamy, nor does it prove the progress would 
not have been greater had polygamy been the social condition 
of a Christian people. 

Again: "That social condition is an Asiatic exotic; ours a 
plant of European-American growth." Why you have just 
declared "Ever since Christ uttered that language [they twain 
shall be one flesh] all of the Japhetic races have adopted 
monogamy as the only foundation of a decent civilization?" 
Now you claim it as "a plant of European-American growth." 
Was not Christ, the founder of your civilization in Asia, a native 
of Asia? How can anyone place confidence in you who are so 
flagrantly self-contradictory? 

Again: 'They [polygamy and monogamy] cannot co-exist; 
they must be divorced; or one or the other must be extir- 
pated." If you extirpate one or the other, is it not divorced 
pretty effectually? How can you divorce them without extir- 
pating one? What do you mean by saying, "they must be 
divorced, or one or the other must be extirpated?" You can 
not explain it, I'll wager. 

But granting that all you say here be true, what does it 
prove? That the Mormons are wrong? That the Asiatic 
races are astray? Certainly not. You are probably among 



tucker's speech. 6i 

those who hope for a higher civilization. What may the 
next century develop? Perhaps that celibacy, as the tendency 
of the age may seem to indicate, is essential to happiness; 
perhaps that promiscuous intercourse under the seductive 
name of free love, as the growth of the spirit of divorce 
may lead one to fear, is the highest outgrowth of civil- 
ization — "the only foundation," in fact, "of a decent civil- 
ization." Such a doctrine even now is not without intelligent 
advocates. Would you, living in such an age, refer to the 
monogamous system of to-day as the barbarism of a century 
past? Would such reference on your part make the customs 
of to-day barbarous? Wise men of all denominations tell us 
we are departing from the ways of God. Returning to Him, 
would it follow that we had turned back the "dial of our destiny" 
to the barbarism of twenty centuries past when men gave up 
their lives, their all for God and^His Holy word? or, would we 
come once more to "the good old way," rejoicing, as one 
who, having lost the road, regains the highway? Are you 
satisfied with your civiHzation? with its drunkenness, debauch- 
ery, adulteries, divorcements, infanticides, abortions, arsons, 
robberies, murders? with its political corruptions, infidelity 
and atheism, socialism, anarchy, death? with its shams in 
religion, bribe-takers in court, quacks in Congress? Oh, the 
wild boast of madmen! If to return to the olden ages, if 
to re-enter the "gloom" of 2,000 years ago when the Son of 
Righteousness gave a glorious and undying light to the chil- 
dren of men, if such a return will save us from the "decent 
civilization" of this age, then let us pray that the "light and 
glory of to-day" may die out, be extinguished, never more to re- 
turn forever. There is no civilization that can bring good where 
the Omnipotent One and His truths are not. How blindly 
infatuated are those so swallowed up in self, in their own 
times, their skin-deep virtues, their heart-deep iniquities, their 
systems and prejudices, that there is left no good — only "bar- 
barism" in the past! Woe to such. There is much for them 
to learn, and it will be a bitter learning. 

That monogamy and polygamy cannot co-exist is the 
declaration of imbecility. They do co-exist. They have 
co-existed for 2,000 years and more. Need more be said. Let 



62 tucker's speech. 

me here suggest: When, until undertaken by the Mormons, 
has polygamy been tried under a full recognition of the 
divine mission of Christ and the divine authenticity of His 
teachings? You say they are incompatible. Men say many 
things. David said all men were liars, and he must have had 
nineteenth century politicians in his mind's eye at the time. 
Were it not a fact that polygamy and monogamy have co- 
existed, how do you know they cannot now, especially under 
the grand and guiding spirit which the teachings of Christ 
may impart to them both— that of toleration, patience and a 
confidence that God works all for the best. 

If we accept the statements of many eminent modern 
divines, we must believe that Christianity is in a very un- 
healthy state. These divines know whether they judge from 
signs within or from evidences without. Another proof of the 
fact is that atheists and infidels, on this statement, accord with 
the divines. This being true, do you maintain (since they 
cannot co-exist) that polygamy is destroying Christianity? or 
would you hold it to be a Christianity, which is counterfeit, 
reaching the natural and inevitable end of all frauds and 
forgeries— death? Polygamy might mean death to modern 
Christianity— as exemplified in its results— but were this an 
admitted fact, it would simply show that your Christianity, in 
the wisdom and ecomomy of the Almighty, was unfit to last. 
As a man who appeals to the authority of Christ, you cannot 
deny this proposition. If you are r'lght, if polygamy means 
death to existing Christianity, you should rejoice. If you are 
wrong, you should— well you should any how — try to keep 
quiet. How vain we become when prejudice and passion sit 
where reason and principle should be enthroned. Let me tell 
you what history teaches: That monogamy and polygamy as 
they always have, always will continue to co-exist. 

Tucker. Then what? Sit down and let them do as the 
gentleman from Utah says — "We will work it out one of these 
days, and if we are wrong we will sink; but you must wait 
and see how long it will take us," 

Comment. The gentleman from Utah said his people 
would sink if they were wrong. You do not deny this. You 
dare not. It is true by any philosophy, by all philosophy. 



tucker's speech. 63 

He did not say "you must see how long it will take us" to 
sink if his people vvere^wrong. I quote what he said: 

"If the Mormon people are what the popular belief declares them to be, 
they will destroy themselves more surely, more rapidly, than can be 
accomplished by any methods to which you dare resort. The effect of 
immoral practices by communities is such certain, such inevitable decay, 
that even when all appears best and fairest the death-promoting germs are 
at work surely and relentlessly undermining, and will bring the whole 
into that crumbling decay, that putrid ruin, which a beneficent Creator 
has determined shall be the fate of all that is not builded upon and sus- 
tained by the eternal principles of morality. If Mormonism fall, it will 
fall of its own weight." 

And this: 

"Time, the great corrector of all evils, will right this wrong, if such it 
be, and the fiat of the Eternal has already decreed that the last vestige of 
Mormonism shall be swept away by the peaceful progress of events, if it 
be not that which God in His wisdom has appointed shall survive as the 
fittest." 

Very different from what you charge him with saying, dif- 
ferent because his remark contains a grand and philosophical- 
truth; while what you say is false. 

Tucker. This language seems to make exclusive claim 
to that Territory [Utah] for the Mormon people. 

Comment. How often, oh, how often, will you force me to 
deny the truth of what you say, and to call attention to the 
absurdity of what you say. No being, the most ingenious, 
can, with a shadow of reason in his behalf, draw any such 
idiotic conclusion. It is a wilful and deliberate attempt to 
make capital in your own behalf by wilful and deliberate 
nonsense. 



64 tucker's speech. 



CHAPTER X. 

TUCKER CONTINUED. — "OUR OWN CHRISTIAN PEOPLE." — A 
GENTLE REMINDER. — THE FRIEND OF RELIGIOUS FREE- 
DOM DISCOVERED. — THE "jOB" DISCLOSED. — MORE REA- 
SONING NEEDED. — THAT POLYGAMOUS STATE. — THE 
FALSIFIER IMPALED. — SATANIC EFFRONTERY. — POLYGAMY, 
"a VERY SMALL PART OF THE WHOLE BUSINESS." — A 
SPEECH HEADED "pOLYGAMY" ONLY AN INCIDENT. — 
ANOTHER REMINDER OF A PAST ASSERTION. — THE GREAT 
UNPARALLELED. — THE STATE OF DESERET. — A REPUDIATOR 
REPUDIATED. 



T 



UCKER. Why, sir, that is our Territory, our domain 
for the homes oi our own Christian people to dwell in. 



Comment. You have said of the land owned by Mormons 
in Utah: "It does not belong to the first little squad of men 
who choose to pounce down upon it and say 'we are monarchs 
of all we survey; our rights there are none to dispute.'" 
Therefore, it does not belong to the first Mormon settlers. 
You have said in substance that there are no Christian homes 
in Utah, because the Christian home consists of one man and 
but one wife who loves "supremely none but her husband," 
while in the homes in Utah the heart of the husband is "divided 
out and diffused among so many wives that it is lost when it 
gets to (any one." (Ilow the heart can get to any woman 
when it is lost before it gets there is one of those paradoxes 
which only a Tucker can explain.) And now you say this 
domain is "ours," "for the home of our own Christian people 
to dwell in." What conclusion is a Mormon to draw from 
these declarations? That the land bought, redeemed and paid 
for by him is not his; that he is not a Christian, and that it is 
proper for Christians to drive him out, rob him, and dwell in 
the land he now occupies. This is the only deduction possible. 
Posing as a Christian champion, you advocate the doctrine of 
robbing Mormons. You urge, jamb through Congress a bill 
designed to justify this robbery; you announce the intention . 



tucker's speech. 65 

in your speech, and yet you say of the Mormon: "I would 
protect him with as much care as I would protect one of any 
other religion;" and you will say a little later: "If there is any- 
body in the world that is bound to be a friend of religious 
freedom, it is a man born in the commonwealth of old 
Virginia." You were born in old Virginia. Yet you, in 
the face of these declarations, justify the robbery of Mor- 
mons, because you say they are not Christians— because 
of their religion. One can now understand why you 
dared not challenge Mr. Bennett, of North Carolina, when 
he declared in his speech, just before you, that this bill 
was "ajob." You did not deny the charge; and by the words 
of your mouth, you proved that he had spoken the truth. 
This is the champion of Christianity and of the Christian 
home. 

Tucker. Why, sir, that is our Territory, our domain for 
the homes ot our ow7i Christian people to dwell in. 

Comment. It has already been shown that the Constitu- 
tion of the United States has made a world-wide bid to the 
poor and the rich of all nations to come hither and take these 
lands. But you touch another point here. As a Constitu- 
tional lawyer of profound erudition you will kindly give your 
authority for the assertion that this land is reserved either for 
"our own people" or "our own Christian people to dwell in." 
You have given article, section and clause with astonishing 
glibness heretofore. Why not do it now? You cannot. The 
Constitution knows no religion. You simply make yourself 
supremely contemptible in the way you proceed. Even did 
the Constitution justify you in your falsehoods, you would 
then, to make good the point, be required to prove first that 
the Mormons were not "our own" people, and then that they 
were not a "Christian" people, for whom these lands are 
reserved. 

Tucker. We want that [Utah] as one of the States of 
this Union. And why does it not come in? Why does it, 
with 180,000 still, as it has for forty years stood, stand as a 
province of the Union and not as a State of the Union? Be- 
cause there are 150,000 Mormons there that would perpetuate 
polygamy as an institution of their society. 



66 tucker's speech. 

Comment. That is false. Again and again, the people 
of Utah have come to Congress and, with a fair and repub- 
lican constitution, built upon those of more advanced States, 
begged to be admitted as a State. Their petitions have been 
ignored. 

How do you know the Mormon people would perpetuate 
polygamy? Has Congress asked them? Have they ever been 
given a chance to enter as a State on a constitution which 
would prohibit forever the practice or countenance of 
polygamy? You cannot tell what the Mormons will do until you 
have given them a chance. 

Reader let me tell you of this man, who condemns the 
Mormons because Utah is not a State. When he had closed 
the two hours' debate on this bill, and had moved the previous 
question, to cut off all amendments and all ^ possibility 
of further debate, Mr. Scott, a representative of Pennsyl- 
vania, pleaded three times to have the privilege of reading to 
the House, for its information, an amendment which he had 
prepared to the bill. Mr. Tucker, had supreme command of 
the time of the House; he could have permitted this amend- 
ment to be discussed, to be read. He positively declined to 
hear it himself or permit the House to hear it. What was 
that amendment? I give it here: 

"That this act shall not take effect till six months after its approval by 
the President, and there shall be an election held in the several precincts of 
said Territory, on the third Monday in March, 1887, at which the qualified 
electors of the said Territory may elect, from each legislative district, 
double the number of delegates they are entitled to elect of councilors 
and representatives to the Legislative Assembly of said Territory, and the 
delegates so elected shall meet at Salt Lake City, on the first Monday of 
April, l88»7, at 12 o'clock, noon, and shall form a constitutional conven- 
tion, and if said convention shall form and adopt a constitution, republi- 
can in form, and which shall prohibit polygatny in said State, and the 
same shall be ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the qualified 
electors at an election to be held for that purpose in the several precincts 
of that Territory, on the first Monday of June, 1887; then the provisions 
of this act shall continue to remain inoperative until such constitution 
shall be presented in the usual manner and acted on by Congress. The 
elections herein provided for, are to beheld, conducted and returns thereof 



tucker's speech. 67 

made in the manner now provided by law for the holding of elections for 
county and precinct ofificers in said Territory, and all acts and parts of 
acts in conflict with the provisions of this section shall and will remain 
inoperative until the expiration of said six months, and in the case of the 
adoption and ratification of said constitution as hereinbefore provided, the 
said provisions shall remain inoperative until action on said constitution by 
Congress." 

And yet this man has the satanic effrontery to charge that 
Utah is a province and has been for forty years, when she 
might have been a State, because the people of Utah would 
perpetuate polygamy as an institution in their society. 

Tucker, Why do not other people go there? Why, how 
can people go there when it is occupied by this number 
[150,000] of a polygamous church who insist on making it a 
polygamous State? 

Comment. This needs no comment when it is stated by 
you that there are in Utah 180,000 people, and that 150,000 ol 
this number want to make a polygamous State. How come 
this 30,000 here who do not want polygamy? The testimony 
before your com.mitttee showed that there were in Utah per- 
haps 2,500 polygamists out of a population of 180,000. Yet 
you assert that 150,000 would continue polygamy as an institu- 
tion in Utah; and ask why people do not go to Utah. It is a 
fair exhibit of the pitiful character of your arguments. I 
blush for you. A Mormon blushes for you. Think of it! 

Tucker. Why, sir, what is this Mormonism? Is it merely 
polygamy? Are we dealing with the individual crime of the 
individual man? Not at all; or only incidentally. That is avery 
small part of the whole business. 

Comment. Indeed. I am reviewing your speech as pub- 
lished in the Cofigressional Record^ or from it, in Ipamphlet 
form, after you had revised it. Do you head this speech 
"Mormonism," or give it some title that will embrace the 
whole subject? No. • You head it "POLYGAMY;" to give out 
the impression that this is the burden of your remarks, and 
then you refer to it as "merely polygamy," only "an incident." 
There is not another practice peculiar to the Mormon religion 
which the law can touch, or for which any person can be 



68 tucker's speech. 

punished; and in tliis bill you do not attempt to make a crime 
of anything else that affects only the Mormons. Yet, speaking 
of polygamy as merely an incident, you would convey the 
impression that you proposed to deal with other crimes 
existing among the Mormons and that this polygamy was but 
an insignificant incident. 

But you have also said: "That the nucleus of the State is 
the home of the people." That the home consists of one 
man and one wife each supremely loving the other; that "as 
is the family, so will be the State." That as the Mormons are 
polygamous they have no such homes, and that as their 
practice is fundamentally at war with that of your Christian 
homes, they therefore are at war against the State; they 
therefore are traitors to the State, as the home of the one man 
and the one woman each loving supremely the other "is the 
foundation of your [national] polity." And how you assert 
that it is "only an incident;" that it "is a very small part of 
the whole business." I leave you in the hole you provided 
for yourself. 

Tucker. Any man that will look into the history of this 
thing [Mormonism] will see that, as the gentleman from Utah 
said to-day, or said to-day in substance, "every Mormon mem- 
ber of a church is bound by his fidelity to the church to see 
that the State is run in favor of the Lord." 

Comment. You are certainly the great unparalleled. The 
gentleman from Utah, Mr. Caine, denied that he made any 
such assertion. His denial is good. What you attribute to 
him is not to be found in his speech because he never uttered 
it. This is what he did say: 

"They [the Mormons] believed and taught then, as they believe and 
teach to-day, that the Government of the United States was founded by 
men who were inspired of God. It mattered not what they had suffered at the 
hands of lawless men, or wherein those in authority had failed to do their 
duty, the Mormon religion imposed upon those who accepted the faith the 
sacred obligation of supporting, defending, and aggrandizing that Govern- 
ment, the estabhshment of which was but part of the latter-day dispen- 
sation." 

How does this fact compare with your charge against him? 
But even were it as you say, what then? Note the position 



tucker's speech. 69 

into which your witless verbiage forces you. We have heard 
you, only a few minutes ago, appealing to the word of God 
to support you in denouncing polygamy. Upon that argu- 
ment you rested this part of your case. Now you complain 
that it is the sworn duty of every Mormon to run the State 
"in favor of the Lord." You have declared that the domain 
of the United States, is reserved for habitation by a Christian 
people. The highest aim of a Christian people is to serve the 
Lord. Now, having found a people who, as you assert, are 
bound by their "fidelity to the Church to see that the State is 
run in the interest of the Lord," you are beside yourself at 
their iniquity. You must pass legislation that will not only 
prevent them dwelling in the domain reserved for them to 
dwell in, but destroy them as a community. The shifts of 
the quack to make both ends of an argument meet are pitiful 
indeed. 

Tucker. In their constitution they [the Mormons in 1S49] 
set up their authority as of the Lord. 

Comment. As a Christian you ought to look upon that as 
pretty good authority. But you do not even stop to dispute 
this claim. 

Tucker. In their constitution they set up their authority 
as of the Lord, in which they said that they themselves must 
be the government of that Territory, "until the Congress ot 
the United States shall otherwise provide for the government 
of the Territory, hereafter named and described, by admitting 
us into the Union!" that is to say, they claimed to be an inde- 
pendent State of Deseret until they were admitted into the 
Union, as a free State inside the Union. * ^v ^ This 
was a clear and distinct usurpation of authority. * * * 
By this act of the Mormon government the power of Con- 
gress was utterly repudiated. 

Comment. Is this reason? If what you here declare be 
true, then what you deduce is false. This was in 1849 — thirty- 
eight years ago. Recently you inquired with that candor 
which is a painful characteristic with you: "Why does it 
[Utah] still, as for forty years it has stood, stand as a province 
of the Union and not as a State in the Union," and you 
answer that it is because there are 150,000 Mormons who 
would perpetuate polygamy as an institution. According to 



70 tucker's speech. 

this, the Mormons might have had statehood the very year 
they reached Utah, then a country belonging to Mexico, and 
two years before they repudiated the authority of Congress. 
Has Congress, all these years, been willing to admit a people 
which repudiates its authority? How can you be believed? 

If, in the constitution of the Provisional Government of the 
State of Deseret, it was provided the people there, in that coun- 
try, and not the people somewhere else, should control affairs 
until Congress would admit Deseret or Utah, or that section 
of country, as a State into the Union, that was not a repudiation 
of the authority of Congress. Was not the very reference to 
the Congress in this connection a recognition of the right of 
that body to admit what is now Utah as a State, or to deny 
the admission? It must occur to all persons of sense that a 
man who would reason as you have done is beside himself — 
self-infatuated, self-blinded. If there has been no better 
sense, or display of it, at the bottom of the assaults on 
Mormonism, it is cause for little wonder that all attacks here- 
tofore have proven rank failures. 

One question may be pertinent. When Congress saw fit 
to frame for Utah a Territorial form of government, did the 
Mormons, or the Mormon Priesthood ever oppose its estab- 
lishment? Is there any record of opposition? Has it ever 
been charged that such establishment was resisted because 
statehood was not offered? A man who would pass as im- 
partial and a competent judge, should be sure that his posi- 
tion is safe. It was not unnatural, nor does it give the 
slightest evidence of bad faith or repudiation of the national 
government, that the Mormons should establish a government 
on the fundamental principles of the nation — the right of the 
governed to say by whom and how they shall be governed. 
Believing that there still remained a faith in this principle 
among the American people, these Mormons framed such a 
government, to fill a needful purpose, to last until the Con- 
gress of the United States, mentioned by name by this people 
in their constitution, should, in its wisdom,"" deem them 
worthy of an enlarged exercise of the powers they claimed a 
right, even then, as American citizens, to exercise in a limited 
degree. It is the consummation of political corruption, of 



I 



tucker's speech. 71 

nineteenth century quackism, for an American Congress- 
man to charge as repudiation an act that could only have 
been conceived where republican principles were warm in 
the hearts of the people. They have been driven again and 
again from homes; denied restitution and protection, wan- 
dered into desolate wilds; worked for years in suffering; made 
a home for broken down government hacks and political 
tramps and scoundrels, who would have ridden them to 
death had they been traitors, who have heaped obloquy upon 
them, who have called them whoremasters, perjurers, assas- 
sins, who have called their wives prostitutes, and who re- 
ioice in designating their children bastards; and as a con- 
summation, a political quack, a life-long sham, a son of a 
State dishonored in his person, rises in the American Congress 
and charges this long-suffering and enduring people with 
repudiating Congress. This is the consummation of humilia- 
tion — to be denounced at such hands. What was to prevent 
the Mormon people openly and avowedly repudiating the 
authority of the United States in 1847, or on till i860 or 1S65? 
Was it repudiation that caused the driven and despoiled 
children of a free government to plant the stars and stripes 
on Mexican Territory? Bah! What was to prevent them 
denying the right of Congress to form a Territorial govern- 
ment here? There were no troops within a thousand miles. 
Ah me! vain is reason to wilful fools and blinded bigots. 



72 tucker's speech. 



CHAPTER XI. 

TUCKER CONTINUED A CORPORATION ALREADY DEAD TO 

BE MADE "deader." — THE DOGBERRY REVEALED. — HE 
WANDERS INTO THE PAST. — PROFOUND SECRETS WHICH 
ARE NOT SECRETS. — ANOTHER DILEMMA. — MORMON 
< RULES THAT ARE UNKNOWN, YET WHICH MR. TUCKER 
HAD IN EVIDENCE BEFORE HIS COMMITTEE. — A RICH 
CHURCH DISCOVERED. — THE JOB AGAIN. — DISESTABLISHED 
AND DISORGANIZED, A VITAL DISTINCTION. — THE MYS- 
TERIES OF RELIGION. — THE OLD STORY OF DANGER TO 
THE STATE. — "WE BE FREE." 

TUCKER. Now I say ^ * * that what the "State 
of Deseret" did after it became a Territory of the 
United States, and after the Organic Act was passed, 
was absolutely null and void. The incorporation of the 
Church, therefore, has no sound foundation, and has had none 
from the beginning. Afterward they incorporated the Perpet- 
ual Emigrating Fund Sjciety, and made it an annex to the 
Church. 

Comment. Were this all, 'twere well with you. But when 
the Territorial Legislature, acting under the Organic Act, 
adopted the work of the Assembly of the Provisional Govern- 
ment of the State of Deseret, how then? and when these acts 
of the Territorial Assembly remain valid till repudiated by 
Congress, what is there left of your glib talk? If they are 
null and void, why do you now undertake to invalidate that 
which has no standing or existence in law? The very argu- 
ments you make to justify the passage of your bill, prove the 
bill to be needless. If the incorporations are dead, null and 
void, there needs no act to make them so. If the act be 
necessary to make them invalid, then they have a genuine and 
actual existence that can only be estopped by Congressional 
enactment. But dead or alive, void or valid, this Dogberry has 
again written himself down an ass. 

Tucker. I saw acts of the Assembly in which they gave 
a whole valley, the Valley of Cache, to Brigham Young, in 



tucker's speech. 73 

trust for the Church; * * acts showing that all the 

legislation of the civil power was in the direction of building 
up the Kingdom of the Lord, as it was represented in the 
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Comment. Is that why you advocated a bill against 
polygamy? But the bill is for the present and for the future; 
not for the past; that you cannot touch. Even were this act 
wrong then, what does it signify now? It is not the first time in 
the world's history that such things have been done. I have 
already had occasion to show the vanity of one who appeals 
to the Lord in one instance because it agrees with him, but 
who, in the next, has the most decided objections to Mormons 
doing the same thing. 

What you should have done — what would have become a 
statesman who is legislating for existing evils — was to show 
that the Mormon Church to-day owns land that has not been 
paid for to the government, that has not been formally and 
properly entered. You say you listened to thirty hours of 
oral argument on the subject of Mormonism, and read all you 
could obtain. Did you ever hear that the general govern- 
ment had not been paid for this land? I have read all the 
arguments made before your committee. I know the charge 
was not made. If you are to legislate on church organizations, 
because of disagreeable things you may discover in their past 
history, you will have opened an inexhaustible field, and the 
Mormon Church, being the youngest, will have the least 
iniquity to account for. If this is the outcome of your legal 
training, if it effects all lawyers alike, one can understand why 
the Knights of Labor are fundamentally opposed to the admis- 
sion into their societies of a lawyer. If, however, you could 
persuade the Knights to read your argument now under 
review, you might escape the most distant suspicion of being 
a lawyer. 

Tucker. They have their secret services in the Endow- 
ment House, where oaths are taken that never get beyond its 
threshold. 

Comment. I will call you truthful if you can prove this. 
If such oaths were taken, there would also be administered an 



74 tucker's speech. 

oath forbidding their discovery. If these oaths never get 
beyond the threshold of the Endowment House, how do you 
know they are taken? I have heard Miss Kate Field, who 
presumably furnished the testimony on the subject presented 
before your committee, read what she said were the Endow- 
ment House oaths — all of them, I understand. If these oaths 
are true, they were furnished by persons foresworn and con- 
fessed oath-breakers. Is this the character of testimony 
on which statesmen and legislators adjudge a community 
guilty? Did these oath-breakers, or liars, for they must be one 
or theother,ever assert there remained other oaths which even 
they dared not divulge? Never. 

Tucker. The power of the hierarchy is complete and 
absolute, but the rules by which it acts are hidden from the 
eyes of men. 

CoMiMENT. This is on a par with the above. For a man 
who listened to thirty hours' oral argument on the subject, 
and read so much, and who never heard or read such a state- 
ment, it comes as near being deliberate slander as can well be 
conceived. The evidence before your committee during the 
inquiry into this subject, showed that the rules for guidance 
among Mormons were contained in the Book of Doctrine and 
Covenants. That book was introduced in testimony, and from 
it extracts were read by R. N. Baskin, who has for years been 
striving to bring the people of Utah into political bondage. It 
was introduced as a book containing the rules by which the 
"hierarchy" obtained its power; it was acknowledged by Mor- 
mons present as containing the rules, and all the rules by 
which they were guided; it was introduced with a view to doing 
harm to the Mormon character, and in the face of this fact, 
you dare to say "The rules by which it [the hierarchy] acts 
are hidden from the eyes of men." Nay, more: It was in 
testimony that this very work, the Doctrine and Covenants, 
was kept in the Congressional Library for public inspection, 
and the copy used by Mr. Baskin was conceded by the Mor- 
mons, and their representatives present, to be authentic. 

Tucker. They have accumulated property to a very large 
amount — to how large an amount we know not. 



tucker's speech. 75 

Comment. And is this the cause for the assault? Why 
then, how about polygamy? Mr. Bennett, in the debate on 
January 12, deliberately characterized the endeavor to pass 
this measure as "a job." It is not so reported in his speech, 
but he did nevertheless, make the charge, and you failed 
either to deny, or challenge that allegation. Was it because 
the Mormons "have accumulated property to a very large 
amount — to how large an amount we know not" — that you 
wanted to pass this measure, which Judge R. T. Bennett 
characterized as"a job?" That you had in this bill arranged for 
an interminable lawsuit on which lawyers might feed and 
fatten? 

Tucker, The great attack upon this bill is made upon 
that provision of it which disestablishes the Church — disin- 
corporates it. That is proposed by this bill to be done, Mr. 
Speaker, because I believe that, as long as that organized power 
of the Church continues, so long will every member of that 
Church be under its control, and thus make the power of the 
State simply the power of the Church. 

Comment. If you could "disorganize" the Church there 
would be no need to disestablish or disincorporate it. The 
disorganization would accomplish all ends. Foolishly you 
mix the words, as you will see with a moment's thought. 
Though you disestablish and disincorporate the Church it 
will remain organized, -and since disorganization is the 
evident purpose (for you object to its organized power) you 
prove yourself a very vain and very silly man. The menJoers of 
the Church only can disorganize it. Your laws to accomplish 
that end are just about as wise as the attempts of a man to 
kick the moon out of place. 

But polygamy — though only an incident — was the first and 
consuming crime at which this bill was aimed. Polygamy 
was unchristian, and would turn back the "dial of our 
destiny" to the "gloom" and "barbarism" of 2000 years 
ago, which produced the greatest, purest, best being 
that ever trod the earth— whether as man or God — 
the Great Exemplar of all enlightened times. To such 
barbarism. Then we find a rich Church, how rich we 
know not, but rich enough, according to one de- 
bater, to prompt an unspotted son of Virginia to crowd 



76 tucker's speech. 

through "a job." And then we come to the marrow of the 
bone— always scouted at, pooh poohed and vehemently 
denied — the thing to be destroyed is Mormonism; and 
because it wields power. We have already learned that you 
do not care for belief; and that you object only to the overt act 
of polygamy, but now we find you consistently inconsistent, 
(in the position that is the sure portion of those who love 
falsehood and vain applause better than truth and manliness) 
repudiating yourself. The Mormon belief makes the Mormon 
Church strong; and you would destroy the Church in the 
hope that the belief may cure itself. The quack will 
advertise himself, gild him with fame and cover him with 
collegiate diplomas as you may. I have already discussed 
this proposition — the temporal effect of every living religion — 
in the review of Mr. Reed's argument. It need not be 
repeated. This I will say: As soon as a religion has lost all 
influence on temporal affairs, so soon it is dead. All the 
embalming that human ingenuity may provide cannot pre- 
serve it from putridity and fitting dissolution. If it live, it will 
have temporal effects; and those effects will reach the civil 
government, despite all the shams, and quacks, and mounte- 
banks, and pettifoggers that can be assembled in Congress, or 
in the world, and despite the legislation of all governments 
from the greatest and freest to the least and most despotic. 
Men live, Carlysle says, by believing something. No Congress, 
or Parliament ever existed that could legislate out of the heart 
of man a deep, living belief. While that belief lasts, it will "or- 
ganize," and that organization will be strong, though you try to 
kill it by oceans of acts and speeches. Men who areadvocates of 
such methods as you propose here, are to legislation what the 
maker of a cure-all pill is to humanity — a rank, unmitigated 
fraud. We may say as we please, but the restraining influence of 
the Catholic religion, despite our hatred of it, has been a God- 
send to many blatherskites before the invention of this latest 
edition of the Tucker family. The man who would seek to 
destroy the power of a religion which, in any degree, restrains 
men, or in any manner, works for good, can only be likened 
to the idiot who sawed off from the tree the limb on which he 
sat. He was rewarded with a broken neck. 



tucker's speech. 77 

Tucker. When religion veils itself in mystery and organ- 
izes its power over its individual members under the dread 
claim of a divine commission to direct the actions, and bind 
the consciences of men; when it accumulates great wealth, 
and thus, through superstitious reverence, and by the influence 
which concentrated and corporate wealth always acquires, 
wields power over civil affairs; such an ecclesiastic organism 
is a menace to the civil power, and becomes dangerous to the 
liberty of the people and to the peace and good order of 
society. 

Comment. When does religion do this? Never. Men do it. 
There are political quacks and charlatans who do it, notably 
in the arguments in favor of this bill, if we substitute for 
"divine commission" the words "divine reason." 

If you mean by this, and of course you do, that such is the 
aim of, such the end attained by the Mormon Church, I give 
you, as a Mormon, the "lie as deep as to the lungs." I dare you 
to prove it. Men have said this and more of the Catholic 
Church. They have been whipped by reason for their pains. 
They have passed away into a silence unfathomable, and the 
mysteries of religion and the ecclesiastical organizations they 
denounced, are still mysteries and controlling powers among 
men. 

And you object to the mystery with which religion veils 
itself because it becomes " a menace to the civil power," and 
dangerous to the liberty of the people. You pose for a 
Christian, or you have, on your own word, no rights here. 
This land is reserved, we have heard you say, for Christian 
people to dwell in, and of course you are one of them, or you 
should be cast out. Can you unwrap the mystery that en- 
shrouds the Godhead? Can you follow, explain, pin down, 
anatomize the operations of the Holy Ghost? Can you dis- 
entangle the skein of faith, and the principle on which it works 
among men? Is there a single point connected with your 
belief as a Christian that, pushed to its human limits, will not 
lose itself deep and dark in unfathomable and boundless 
mystery? Unclean are the lips that can cry Christianity, bad 
the heart that appeals to Christ and yet protests that religion 
veiled in mystery is a "menace to the civil power," "dangerous 
to the liberty of the people." There was one of old, learned 



78 tucker's speech. 

even as thou, with all thy getting, and blessed withal with the 
day star of inspiration, who wrote: "Great is the mystery of 
Godliness;" and one of old, of the "barbarism" and "gloom" of 
2000 years ago, the blessed Exemplar, who said it was 
blessed to believe and see, but a greater blessing to believe 
and not to see; that He had many things to say that they then 
could not understand; that only by faith all things were 
possible. And the Jews, who could not understand Him, had 
Him crucified because His religion was veiled in mystery and 
because it was a "menace to the civil power," and a danger to 
the liberty of people. "We be free!" they cried. 

You dangle daintily on a dangerous gulf The years roll 
about you. Speak some true, some serious farewell word ere 
they engulf you forever, or be wise and — silent. Oblivion! 
It will come to you. It comes to all save those that speak the 
truth. For the rest, but a groan and all is passed — silence, 
eternal, unfathomable. The true word only lives forever; the 
true act alone endures for always. 



CHAPTER XII. 

TUCKER CONTINUED. — A NEW QUESTION. — A GREATER THAN 
DIANA OF THE EPHESIANS. — THE OLD STORY OF CHURCH AND 
STATE WITH A SINGULAR VARIATION. — WISER THAN THE 
BUILDER OF HEAVEN AND EARTH. — UNDISGUISED ATHEISM. 
— A QUESTION AND AN ANSWER WHICH NAILS A PREVIOUS 
UNTRUTH. — ANOTHER QUERY AND ANOTHER REPLY. — A 

WILFUL DECEPTION REMINDERS IN SEVERAL DIRECTIONS. 

— A BAD BOX. — FREEDOM OF WORSHIP. — A PARTNERSHIP. 
— THE CHURCH TOO SACRED. — THE DEDUCTIONS THAT 
. ARE NOT WANTED. 

TUCKER, The question for the committee was this: Is 
it not public policy to disestablish the Church, to put 
it on the same basis with all other churches, and by 
dissolving the corporation of the Church leave its members as 
citizens free from this corporate ecclesiastical authority to act 



tucker's speech. 79 

as their judgments should dictate in civil affairs; to free the 
man from corporate shackles and leave him to independent 
action as a citizen of the State. 

Comment. Here, again, we have the expressed deter- 
mination to destroy the organization of the Mormon Church. 
This was called a bill against polygamy. On this cry it was 
approved by the country. But its wily manager, with all his 
legal cunning, in the heat of debate, and lashed by the con- 
sciousness of a traitors' and turn-coat's shame, cannot dis- 
guise his real intent, but discovers that it is the destruction of 
the Mormon Church he desires. What else can this language 
mean? I call attention again to the fact that David says all 
men are liars, and add, that liars, of all people should have 
good memories. Otherwise they had better tell the truth. 
The assumption in this paragraph that the members of the 
Mormon Church are not free to act as they choose is one of the 
cute methods common to tricksters who mistake sophistry for 
reason, and silence for conviction. Imagine a sane man telling 
one who can think, that he must do so; imagine him telling 
one who, by nature, lacks the power for the continued 
thought necessary to reach sound conclusions, that he must 
act for himself, think and judge for himself! But imbecile as 
this is, it is God-like in its wisdom to the rank idiocy of him 
who imagines he can make reasoners of men by disestablish- 
ing their church. Here indeed, may we cry, "Oh reason! 
thou hast fled to brutish beasts." Great was Diana of the 
Ephesians, but greater Tucker of Virginia, for he, by legislative 
enactment, will take the shackle from the Mormon mind, and 
set the enthralled reason at God-like liberty. Say not the gods 
no more do visit the earth! 

Tucker. As to the power of the Church to accumulate 
property and mingle itself too much with the temporalities of 
this world, we know that that will corrupt the church, and 
that when the church is corrupted, it will corrupt the state. 

Comment. The old adage runs: "Give a fool rope enough 
and he will hang himself." Here we have it exemplified 
anew. Do you forget that you have already declared: 

"The nucleus of the state is the home of the people. What is the 
home of the people? The one man and the one woman; the one man 



8o tucker's speech. 

loving supremely none but her, and the woman loving none supremely 
but her husband. Thank God there are such homes yet in this great land 
which He has given to us and our posterity. That is the foundation of 
your polity; without it there would not be a Christian State in the Union 
that would be fit to live in. The family is the germ of society. As is the 
family, so will be the state. 

Of these two opposing statements, which are we to accept? 
Does the purity of the state depend on the home with one 
wife, or on the freedom of the church from temporal affairs? 
All your cheap talk about the home and one wife, and the 
children and the state, becomes, by this later enunciation of 
fundamental principle, froth and buncombe. You also forget, 
that but a brief space before (after having appealed to the 
word of the Lord to bolster up your assault on polygamy) you 
became furious because the Mormons are required by their 
fidelity to run the state in favor of the Lord. This time, 
like the clown in the circus, you perform a grand double 
summersault, and returning to your first love, tremble lest the 
church should become corrupt, and the state suffer thereby. 
The church, lest it should be contaminated, must be removed 
to a sphere where its power to do harm becomes as limited as 
its capacity for doing good; it must cease to be either 
of earthly or of heavenly use, lest it might do harm; 
i. e.: it must cease to exist. Our statesman's wisdom 
exceeds that of the Almighty Himself and the Son of 
Man; for while God designed His Gospel to go among 
the children of men and lift them from the errors of their 
ways, our hero would save the church at the expense of the 
inhabitants of the earth. What more can Atheism ask? This 
from a Christian! one who appeals to the Divine lawgiver! 
Can words express the contempt, the deep, unutterable con- 
tempt, which wise men and true must feel for one like this? 

Just mark the following question and answer: 

Mr. Warner, of Ohio. Will you please state just here, for 
the information of the House, whether the Mormon Church 
still owns those lands which you say were granted by the State 
of Deseret? 

Mr. Tucker. Yes, Sir. I have already stated in the report, 
and I state now, that after the power of the Territory got into 



tucker's speech. 8i 

the hands of the United States, after Brigham Young was 
"disestablished" as governor, by President Buchanan, the 
Legislature revoked a great many of those grants of Property 
to the Church, but the establishment of the Church was after- 
wards confirmed by the Territory of Utah, at some time before 
i860. 

Comment. In the last two lines of this answer you assert 
what proves you to have told a wilful untruth before. You 
have previously said that the church incorporation was null 
and void because organized by the state of Deseret after the 
passage of the act organizing the Territory. You deliberately 
omitted in that connection to state what you now acknowl- 
edge: that the establishment of the church was afterwards 
confirmed by the Territorial Legislature. You did not state 
it then because it would have destroyed your point. Why, in 
1882 you said, speaking against the Edmunds bill passed that 
year: 

"It appears that the governor and Legislative Asssembly of Utah, by 
an act passed January 19, 1855, adopted and re-enacted an ordinance 
passed by the provisional government of Deseret February 8, 1851, by 
which Mormonism with its polygamous rites was legalized in that Terri- 
tory. 

Mr. Peters. Is the title to their Church property derived 
from any other source than the Territorial act? 

Mr. Tucker. They may have obtained some of their 
property from individuals. I think it is the fact that they have 
done so. I will come to that point in a moment, to show the 
reason for one feature of this bill. 

Comment. But you never come to the point — wisely 
drop it there. For one who boasted he had read all he could 
get on the subject and listened to thirty hours oral argument, 
for one supposed to give ample reason, and be in possession 
of sufficent proof to justify his urging such a measure through 
the House in mad haste, you have a very faulty memory — 
though excellent enough when it is convenient. The ques- 
tion itself is a painful exhibition of ignorance. As though a 
Territorial government could convey to any person or set of 
persons any of the domain of the United States. About 
twenty minutes before you answered Mr. Peters' question, 
you were quoting from the Constitution: 



82 tucker's speech. 

"Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules 
and regulations respecting the Territory or other property belonging to 
the United States." 

You have said: "It belongs to the United States," not "to 
the first little squad of men who choose to pounce down upon 
it;" "that is our territory, our domain for the homes of our 
own Christian people to dwell in." And so on. You hold 
Congress can do as it "shall deem best and proper" with this 
land, this territory, and yet, when a very foolish question is 
asked, with characteristic insincerity you hedge and say you 
believe so and so. You know that the Territory could not 
give an acre of the land. You knew that Congress had never 
given the church a rod. You knew that if the church held so 
much as a single foot which had not been properly entered 
and paid for, a horde of adventurers, inspired by your Chris- 
tian possession theory, would pounce upon it, and that such 
men as J. Randolph Tucker would proclaim the dismal fact to 
the ends of the earth through the medium of the Congres- 
sional Record and a speech held for revision. What a base, 
cowardly wretch untruth and evil purpose make of an animal 
originally designed for man. 

Tucker. We propose to enact in the eighteenth section 
of this bill that the Mormon Church and all other churches 
shall have the right to worship God according to the dictates 
of their own conscience. 

Comment. Your method of stating untruths without stat- 
ing them — leaving the inference certainly to be drawn — mani- 
fests itself perpetually. You know, if you know anything 
about the subject, that there has never been hindrance in Utah 
to any person worshipping God as he wills. You would, how- 
ever, by tTiis cheap utterance, bolster up a previously deduc- 
able untruth, that religious toleration was a dead thing in 
Utah. This, too, when the men who have abused the Mor- 
mons in your hearing live, and live well in Utah; when minis- 
ters, whose flocks are in Utah, make periodical pilgrimages 
east to gather in stray pence by denouncing Mormons as the 
scum of the universe. In the face of these notorious facts, you 
would insinuate that freedom of worship was not tolerated in 
Utah. 



tucker's speech. 83 

Tucker. In my judgment there can be no such partner- 
ship as that [the plan proposed by the Senate bill that the 
United States appoint thirteen trustees to control the Mormon 
Church]. I hold the Church of God too sacred for any such 
partnership. There can be no partnership, as there is no con- 
cord between Christ and Belial. Let church and state stand 
apart. 

Comment. Once more we perceive a burning affection 
for the Church. The Church is too sacred for earth — that is 
the substance; and the God of Heaven, when he established 
it here, made one of those mistakes which but one Tucker in 
a life-time discovers. There must be a divorcement. Divorce- 
ment means death. If the Church has no temporal effect, it 
can have no existence. You object to it having temporal 
weight. You would save the Church by killing it. The 
Church must die that it may live. Such is your reasoning. It 
is too sacred for the earth, and in order to be of use to men, 
it must be relegated to a sphere where it can be of no use. 
You have no conception nf the difficulty a careful reader has 
in knowing what you think, or what you mean. Sure it is 
that no human being can tell what you believe; but if your 
enunciations do not dance on the brink of Atheism, admit all 
its claims, then indeed Atheism is not. Such the is man who 
prates of God's Church being too sacred for a certain part- 
nership. Whatever may be said of Mormonism, it is cer- 
tain you would have to mend your theology before you could 
be admitted a member of that Church. 

But you are not done with the subject yet. There are 
admissions, to be explained. You have already stated that 
the purity of the state depends on the purity of the Church. 
If the latter is corrupted the state also becomes corrupt. If, 
therefore, the perpetuity and morality of the state depend 
on the condition of the Church, then the Church is wholly 
indispensible to the state, for you have in effect, said the one 
depends upon the other. If you have not said this, then your 
words have no meaning. If, therefore, they be divorced, the 
state falls, for its moral, and necessarily therefore, its corporate 
existence, is due to the purity of the Church. Being no 
Church, there is for the State no anchor, no guide, no safe- 
guard from destruction, and it must fall. This last is a 



84 tucker's speech. 

Christian principle, and you like it when it suits you; but 
when, to establish another point, you assert there can be no 
partnership between them, the Church is "too sacred," they 
must stand apart, you play the Atheist to his utmost bent. 
There is no basis on which to hang a man who holds first the 
State as dependent on the Church, and then declares they 
must be divorced for the benefit of the Church. The whole 
point and pith and purpose of your words go to show that 
the destruction of the Church is absolutely essential to the 
welfare of the State, How base and fallen is one that 
endeavors to hoodwink himself. 



CHAPTER Xril. 

TUCKER CONCLUDED. — WHAT IS IMMORALITY? — THE PRODI- 
GAL'S RETURN. — COMPARISONS UNDESIRABLE, — SO MUCH 
RISK FOR SO LITTLE AND THEN TO LOSE. — GOING OUT OF 
PUBLIC LIFE. — A VAIN LIFE. — PITY FOR THE WEAK. — A 
DAY SIGNALIZED. — BLESSED TIME. — TIME COMES WHEN 
ALL IS FORGOTTEN, — WHERE xMEN SHOULD DIE. — A 
FINISHED TASK. — THE UNSEEN LINE. 

TUCKER. What I want is that this Government shall 
set its face forever against this immorality. [Loud 
applause.] I believe to-day that with the passage ot 
this bill, which is not unjust to any of them; and with the 
passage of the Constitutional amendment, which simply pro- 
vides that the Territory, when it comes in, shall not go back 
on its record as an anti-polygamous Territory, and shall not 
"return as a dog to his vomit or a sow to her waller in the 
mire;" and that this crime of polygamy shall be a constiu- 
tional crime, just as treason is a constitutional crime; and that 
the punishment for polygamy shall be prescribed by Congress 
as is the punishment of treason, and shall be tried by the 
Federal courts just as treason is tried; that this evil will be 
forever stamped out. 

Comment. What you want is the government forever, to 
set its face against this immoraUty? We have heard you make 
use of this language, within half an hour. "Why, sir, what is 



tucker's speech. 85 

this Mormonism? Is it merely polygamy? Are we dealing 
here with the individual crime of the individual man? Not at 
all, or only incidentally. That is a very small part of the 
whole business.'''' Comment were painful. What can you 
think of yourself? 

Many things are made crimes by the law which are not im- 
moral; many things immoral which are not crimes. That is not 
necessarily immoral which is opposed to our senses or to our 
prejudices; nor is that always moral which pleases us most, or 
which our sentiment applauds. I mention this simply because 
you manifest a determined inclination to use the words as 
synonymous. That is immoral which is opposed to the law 
of God. Ignore them by the absence of laws as much as we 
choose, still those things remain immoral which are contrary 
to God's will. This is not the place to discuss the morality of 
polygamy or any of its features. But it is not sufficient for 
you to assert it to be immoral; nor to misapply and belie the 
Savior, as you have done, to maintain a shameful and 
slanderous positon. If it be a sin and immoral, it is so because 
God has so declared it to be. The ingenuity, cunning, legal 
lore, baseness, sophistry, falsehood and brains of all the 
quacks in politics that ever lived, backed up by laws and 
bills, mountains high and oceans wide, cannot make it a sin 
or immoral unless the Omnipotent Lawgiver has so declared 
it. This much may be said: You have not proven it to be 
immoral. Its results do not prove it to be such; nature does 
not condemn it, and where men denounce it the law of God is 
silent. And a further remark: If it be immoral, it is impure. 
Perhaps this nineteenth century Zeus will show where, in 
polygamous nations, exist the heinous crimes (abounding in 
monogamous and so-called Christian countries) which are the 
grief of all good men and women, of the heroic Tucker him- 
self. Is there no purity of life among Musselmen? The 
comparison between their morality and our "plant of European- 
American growth" is one that no sane advocate of Chris- 
tian and civilized monogamy will wisely invite. Ah me, 
how often do Goldsmith's words recur to the mind in this 
age. "Some men think they pay every debt to virtue by 
praising it." 



86 tucker's speech. 

Back again to polygamj' and immorality — the last resort ot 
demagogues and sycophantish purists, just as patriotism is the 
last cry of scoundrels. The church forgotten, its accumla- 
tions unminded, the divorcement of state and Church ignored. 
Back again to polygamy, and whip your little soul into a fury 
till your doting head shake, and your failing voice crack again. 
To stamp out polygamy! How many windings in behalf of 
this "job"— and that it should fail ! What sacrifices of truth, 
honor, principle, of a life-long reputation, in the vain and fu- 
tile hope of triumphing over a handful of poor, weak, power- 
less, almost friendless Mormons. Vain! vain! So much to 
risk for so little— and then to lose! 

Tucker. I feel a deep interest in the question, because, as 
I said a few weeks ago, I am going out of public life. If lean 
do anything to establish a pure system in that unfortunate 
Territory b}^ uprooting this criminal institution of its society, 
which has been a foul blot upon the name and civilization of 
the whole country, and thus permit this Territory, when the 
proper time shall come, to enter into the pure sisterhood of 
States with the institution of a pure Christian home as the 
basis of its polity, then I shall feel that my humble public life 
has not been altogether in vain. [Prolonged applause.] 

\ Comment. Has it not already been said: Whom the gods 
would destroy they first made mad? This the consummation of 
a life of public service! Arrayed with — nay, leading — a wild 
mob against a handful of helpless Mormons, helpless save for 
an unshaken trust in God. Against whom it is necessary to 
speak falsely to make a case. Relegated to private life with 
a falsehood on your lips and wild hatred in your heart — hatred 
of the defenseless, the industrious, the thrifty, the weak, of 
the earth against whom all men are massed. Trading on a 
reputation for intelligence, principle and veracity to secure the 
death of a system that has enriched the country, caused men 
to lead pious lives, and blossemed with a thousand virtues 
(admitting as true all that is said against it) that would grace 
the life and adorn the character of even a Tucker! It this be 
accomplished, "then I shall feel that my public life has not 
been altogether vain." "Vain otherwise?" asks the thought- 
ful reader. No, not vain. Results for good or evil are long 



tucker's speech. 87 

enduring, but better vain than to succeed in that which can be 
secured by pubHc clamor and unreason alone. But let us be 
just. 

"No one can ever truly see 

Another's highest, noblest part, 
Save through the sweet philosophy 

And loving wisdom of the heart." 

When time shall have swept away the mists from before 
our eyes, and the hearts of men and their motives shall stand 
revealed, there may be in the life of J. Randolph Tucker that 
which will mitigate the abuse of power which Almighty God, 
in His economy, has permitted this man to use. Men who do 
wrong are to be pitied. Pity him. A strong man had been 
wiser; the weak claim our sympathy, though their arrogance 
often begets our contempt. 

Tucker. Let the evening of January 12th, be signalized 
by the passage of this bill. 

Comment. How great a blessing is time! For with uner- 
ring tread she strides over the ephemeral and evanescent 
reputations of men, crushing, grinding, to dust, till all be lost 
and forgotten. Sweet oblivion! Sweetest of all to those who, 
having been given power of men, abuse that power! Even the 
i2th of January, 1887, will be forgotten. Time comes when 
this bill will be forgotten; when its successor will be no more; 
when the memory of it, its authors, advocates, executors, de- 
fenders, and assailants are no more. Could evil always live, 
could its effects be prolonged, wearing forever new vestures 
after the fashion of the old, there would come an hour, when 
the names that have plead for such measures as this, would be 
synonyms for all that is base, vile, cheap and corrupt, 'Twere 
better never to have been born, than be among those who 
force effects that for time and time, bring but evil to men. Ah, 
no! A friendly Providence has ordained that we often be 
saved from ourselves; and 'tis blessed so. But for the here- 
after! The lies, sophistries, applause, pomp, power, reason- 
ings of this life, of what avail then? Think of it, man! What 
answer will they make to Infinite Justice, when the last farth- 



88 TUCKER'S SPEECH. 

ing will be demanded? Wise men find in each day sufficient 
for itself. And if for the future we build, if to have lived not 
in vain, how shall we act? Better the humble walk in life, bet- 
ter a name unknown, a fame unsung, an unmarked grave, the 
unread history of a life that was true, than all the praise, ap- 
plause, power and pomp that cunning and lying, force from 
the vanity of vain men and mad! Such a life works forever 
for good. Its effect is for always! It 'has the blessed coun- 
tenance of the Son of Righteousness. 

How little reeks it where men die, 

When once the moment's past 
In which the dull and glazing eye 

Has looked on earth its last? 

Whether, beneath the sculptured urn 

The coffined form shall rest, 
Or, in its nakedness, return 

Back to its mother's breast. 

Death is a common friend or foe, 

As different men may hold, 
But, at its summons, each must go. 

The timid and the bold; 

But when the spirit, free and warm, 

Deserts us, as it must, 
What matter where the hfeless form 

Resolves again to dust? 

'Twere sweet, indeed, to breathe our last. 

With those we cherish near, 
And, wafted upward by their sighs, 

Soar to some calmer sphere. 

But whether on the gallows high, 

Or in the battles' van, 
The fittest place where man can die. 

Is WHERE HE DIES FOR MAN. 



The task is done. It has grown beyond expectation. Legal 
questions have not been touched. Much that might havebeen 
said has been omitted. No defense of Mormon doctrines has 



tucker's speech. 89 

been attempted. The whole purpose has been, by the very 
speeches made in behalf of this measure, to demonstrate the 
intent as false, the reason spurious and destructively contra- 
dictory, and, on the very showing made by the advocates of 
the bill, to prove they had no case. I believe it has been done. 
The assertions made to bolster up the bill are contradictory 
and destructive of each other; they are false; the reasoning is 
spurious and vain, the intent not to affect polygamy but to 
destroy a church and bring a people into a political slavery. 
The measure was conceived in hatered, based on falsehood, 
born for robbery and spoliation, and fed by prejudice, ignor- 
ance and wickedness of heart. 

How long will the people of this nation countenance such a 
course? What a tale ot duplicity, fraud, ignorance, imbecility, 
designed robbery and slavery, these speeches reveal when 
examined by the light of— yes, by the light only of a tallow dip. 
Let the wise pause. Let them ask: Are we deceived alone on 
this subject? Liars are always liars. Wise men trust them in 
nothing. There is a line. Citizen, voter, reader, man, has it 
not been reached? 

There is a time, we know not when, 
A point, we know not where, 

That marks the destiny of men 
To glory or dispair. 

There is a hne, to us unseen, 
That crosses every path, 

The hidden boundary between 
God's mercy and His wrath. 



TUCKER'S SUBSTITUTE. 



FOLLOWING is the bill which Mr. Tucker reported as a 
substitute for the Senate bill, and which was under con- 
sideration at the time the speeches reviewed were delivered. 

That in any proceedings and examination before a grand jury.a judge, 
justice, or a United States commissioner, or a court, in any prosecution for 
bigamy, polygamy, or unlawful cohabitation, under any statute of the 
United States, the lawful husband or wife of the person accused shall be 
a competent witness, and may be called, but shall not be compelled to 
testify in such proceeding, examination, or prosecution, and shall not be 
permitted to testify as to any statement or communication made by either 
husband or wife to each other, during the existence of the marriage rela- 
tion, deemed confidential at common law. 

Sec. 2. That in any prosecution for bigamy, polygamy or unlawful 
cohabitation, under any statute of the United States, whether before a 
United States commissioner, justice, judge, a grand jury, or any court, an 
attachment for any witness may be issued by the court, judge, or commis- 
sioner, without a previous subpoena, compelling the immediate attendance 
of such witness, when it shall appear, by the oath or affirmation of at least 
two credible persons in writing, to the commissioner, justice, judge, or 
court, as the case may be, that there is reasonable ground to believe that 
such witness will unlawfully fail to obey a subpoena issued and served in 
the usual course in such cases: and in such case the usual witness fees 
shall be paid to such witness so attached: Provided, That the person so 
attached may at any time secure his or her discharge from custody by 
executing a recognizance before any commissioner, judge, justice or court, 
of the United States, with sufficient su'-ety, conditioned for the appear- 
ance of such person at the proper time as a witness in the cause or pro- 
ceeding wherein the attachment may be issued. 

Sec 3. That every ceremony of marriage, or in the nature of a 
marriage ceremony, of any kind, in any of the Territories of the United 
States, whether either or both or more of the parties to such ceremony be 
lawfully competent to be the subjects of such marriage or ceremony, or 
not, shall be certified by a writing stating the fact and nature of such 
ceremony, the full name of each of the parties concerned, and the full 



tucker's substitute. 91 

name of every officer, priest, and person, by whatever style or designation 
called or known, in any way taking part in the performance of such cere- 
mony, which certificate shall be drawn up and signed by the part "es to 
such ceremony, and by every ofificer, priest, and person taking part in the 
performance of such ceremony, and shall be by the officer, priest, or other 
person solemnizing such marriage or ceremony filed in the office of the 
probate court, or, if there be none, in the office of the court having probate 
powers in the county or district in which such ceremony shall take place, 
for record, and shall be immediately recorded, and be at all times subject 
to inspection as other pubric records. Such certificate, or the record 
thereof, or a duly certified copy of such record, shall be prima facie 
evidence of the facts required by this act to be stated therein, in any 
proceeding, civil or criminal, in which the matter shall be drawn in 
question. Any person who shall wilfully violate any of the provisions of 
this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall on con- 
viction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than ^l.ooo, or by 
imprisonment not longer than two years, or by both said punishment, 
in the discretion of the court. 

Sec. 4. That nothing in this act shall be held to prevent the proof of 
marriages whether lawful or unlawful, by any evidence now legally 
admissible for that purpose, 

Sec. 5. That it shall not be lawful for any female to vote at any 
election hereafter held in the Territory of Utah for any public purpose 
whatever, and no such vote shall be received or coutxted or given effect 
in any manner whatever; and any and every act of the governor and Legis- 
lative Assembly of the Territory of Utah providing for or allowing the 
registration or voting by females is hereby annulled. 

Sec. 6. That all laws of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory ol 
Utah which provide for numbering or identifying the votes of the electors 
at any election in said Territory are hereby disapproved and annulled; but 
the foregoing provision shall not preclude the lawful registration of voters, 
or any other provisions for securing fair elections which do not involve the 
disclosure of the canddiates for whom any particular elector shall have 
voted. 

Sec. 7. That the laws enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the 
Territory of Utah conferring jurisdiction upon probate courts, or the 
judges thereof, or any of them, in said Territory, other than in respect of 
the estates of deceased persons, and in respect of the guardianship of the 
persons and property of infants, and in respect of the persons and prop- 
erty of persons not of sound mind, are hereby disapproved and annulled; 
and no probate court or judge of probate shall exercise any jurisdiction 
other than in respect of the matters aforesaid; and every such jurisdiction, 



92 tucker's substitute. 

so by force ol this act withdrawn from the said probate courts or judges, 
shall be had and exercised by the district courts of said Territory, re- 
spectively. 

Sec. 8. That if any person related to another person within and not 
including the fourth degree of consanguinity, computed according to the 
rules of the civil law, shall marry or cohabit with or have sexual inter- 
course with such other so related person, knowing him or her to be within 
said degree of relationship, the person so offending shall be deemed guilty 
of incest, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment 
in the penitentiary not less than three years and not more than fifteen 
years. 

Sec. 9. That when sexual intercourse is committed between a married 
person of one sex and an unmarried person of the other sex, both per- 
sons shall be deemed guilty of adultery, and shall, upon conviction thereof 
be punished by fine not exceeding ^100, or by imprisonment not exceed- 
ing three months, or both, in the discretion of the court. 

Sec. 10. That all laws of the Legislaitve Assembly of thg, Territory 
of Utah which provide that prosecutions for adultery can be commenced 
only on the complaint of the husband or wife are hereby disapproved and 
annulled; and all prosecutions for adultery may hereafter be instituted in 
the same way that prosecutions for other crimes are. 

Sec. II. That the marriage relation between one person of either sex 
and more than one person of the other sex shall be deemed polygamy. 
Polygamy or any polygamous association or cohabitation between the 
sexes is hereby declared to be a felony, and shall be punished by confine- 
ment in the penitentiary for a term not less than one year nor more than 
five years; and the continuance of the polygamy or polygamous associa- 
tion or cohabitation between the sexes after any indictment or other legal 
proceeding is commenced against any person shall be deemed a new- 
offense, punishable as aforesaid. 

Sec. 12. That the laws enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the 
Territory of Utah, which provide for or recognize the capacity of illegiti- 
mate children to inherit or be entitled to any distributive share in the 
estate of the father of such illegitimate child are hereby disapproved and 
a mulled; and no illegitimate child shall hereafter be entitled to inherit 
from his or her father or to receive any distributive share of the estate of 
his or her father: Provided, That this section shall not apply to any ille- 
gitimate child born within twelve months after the passage of this act, nor 
to any child made legitimate by the seventh section of the act entitled "An 
act to amend section 5352 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, 
in reference to bigamy, and for other purposes," approved March 22, 1882. 
Sec. 13. That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to 



tucker's substitute. 93 

repeal the act of Congress entitled, "An act to amend section 5352 of the 
Revised Statutes of the United States, in reference to bigamy, and for 
other purposes," approved March aa, 1882; but the provisions of said act, 
except in so far as they are repugnant to this act, shall be applicable to 
this act as if herein expressly mentioned; and the power given to the 
President by the sixth section of said act shall be applicable to the offenses 
created by this act. 

Sec. 14. That the acts of the Legislative Assembly of Utah incorpor- 
ating, continuing, or providing for the corporation known as the Church 
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the ordinance of the so-called 
general assembly of the state of Deseret incorporating the Church ot 
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so far as the same may now have legal 
force and vaUdity, are hereby disapproved and annulled, and the said 
corporation, in so far as it may now have, or pretend to have, any legal 
existence, is hereby dissolved. 

Sec. 15. That all Jaws of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory ot 
Utah, or of the so-called government of the state of Deseret, creating, 
organizing, amending, or continuing the corporation or association called 
the Perpetual Emigration Fund Company are hereby disapproved and 
annulled; and the said corporation, in so far as it may now have, or 
pretend to have, any legal existence, is hereby dissolved; and it shall not 
be lawful for the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah to create, 
organize, or in any manner recognize any corporation or association, or to 
pass any law, for the purpose of or operating to accomphsh the bringing 
of persons into the said Territory for any purpose whatsoever. 

Sec. 16. That it shall be the; duty 'of the Attorney-General of the 
United States to cause such proceedings-to be taken in the supreme court 
of the Territory of Utah]as shall'be proper to;declare void and to dissolve 
the said corporations mentioned in the preceding' section and in the 
fourteenth section of this act, and /pay' the debts and to dispose of the 
property and assets thereof according to law>nd'equity. 

Sec. 17. That the eleventh paragraph>f 'the third^section^of the act 
entitled "An^act in relation to courts and judicial^^officers of the Territory 
of Utah," approved June 23, 1874, be, andj the same is hereby, amended 
so as to read as follows: 

"A writ of error from the",Supreme Court of the United States to the 
supreme court of the said Territory shall he in" all criminal cases where 
the accused shall have been sentenced to capital punishment, or convicted 
of bigamy, polygamy, or\inlawful cohabitation, or of any] offense under 
the act entitled 'An^act to amend section 5352 of the '^Revised Statutes of 
the United States, in^ reference to bigamy, and for other /^purposes,' ap- 
proved March 22, 1882, or under this act, whether the judgment com- 



94 TUCKER'S SUBSTITUTE. 

plained of was rendered before or after the approval of this act; and a writ 
of error from the Supreme Court of the United States to the supreme 
court of the Territory, or an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United 
States from the supreme court of the Territory, shall likewise lie and be 
allowed as to any judgment or decree rendered in any proceeding or suit 
authorized under the sixteenth section of this act; and the Supreme 
Court of the United States is authorized to speed all cases arising under 
this section, and dispose of them as promptly as possible, without regard 
to place upon the docket: Provided, however. That the writ of error or 
appeal hereby allowed shall be taken and prosecuted within the period 
limited in like cases from judgments and decrees of the circuit courts of 
the United States, or within one year from the approval of this act." 

Sec. i8. That all religious societies, sects, or denominations shall have 
the right to have and to hold, through trustees appointed by the several 
county courts of the Territory, so much real property for the erection of 
houses of worship, and for the residence of minister, priest, or other 
religious teacher, ai shall be needed for the convenience and use of the 
several congregations of such religious society, sect or denomination: 
Provided, hoivever, That such real property shall not exceed in an incor- 
porated town or city ten acres, or elsewhere fifty acres; nor shall any such 
society, sect, or denomination have and hold, except in the value of 
buildings erected on said real property as aforesaid, and in the value of 
the personal property used in religious worship or for the comfort of those 
assembled therefor, a greater amount in money value than ^50,000, 

Sec. 19. That commissioners appointed by the supreme court and 
district courts in the Territory of Utah shall possess and may exercise all 
the powers and jurisdiction that are or may be possessed or exercised by 
justices of the peace in said Territory under the laws thereof, and the same 
powers conferred by law on commissioners appointed by circuit courts of 
the United States. 

Sec. 20. That the marshal of said Territory of Utah, and his deputies, 
shall possess and may exercise all the powers in executing the laws of the 
United States possessed and exercised by sheriffs and their deputies as 
peace officers; and each of them shall arrest or cause to be arrested all 
offenders against the law in his view, and carry them before the proper 
officer or court for examination according to law. They shall have power 
to prevent assaults and batteries, and to quell and suppress riots, routs, 
and affrays. 

Sec. 20. That all laws passed by the so-called state of Deseret and by 
the Territory of Utah for the organization of the militia thereof or for the 
creation of the Nauvoo legion are hereby annulled, repealed, and declared 
void and of no effect; and the militia of Utah shall be organized and 



tucker's substitute. 95 

subjected in all respects to the laws of the United States regulating 
the militia in the Territories: Provided, however. That all general officers 
of the militia shall be appointed by the governor of the Territory, by and 
with the advice and consent of the council thereof. The Legislative 
Assembly of Utah shall have power to pass laws for organizing the militia 
thereof, subject to the approval of Congress. 

Sec. 21. That all laws passed by the general assembly of Deseret or 
by the Legislative Assembly of Utah granting or confirming any water, 
timber, or herd rights on any part of the public domain, or any special 
privilege therein, to any person or to any civil or ecclesiastical corporation 
or association, or to any person for the use and benefit of any such cor- 
poration or association, are hereby annulled and declared void; and the 
Attorney-General of the United States is hereby directed to cause such 
proceedings to be had in the supreme court of the Territory of Utah as 
shall enforce this section, and also to avoid and set aside all fraudulent 
entries upon homestead or pre-emption claims to lands in said Territory 
as may come to his knowledge; and the supreme court of said Territory 
shall have all needful jurisdiction in law and equity for the purposes of 
this act. 

Sec. 22. (a) A widow shall be endowed of the third part of all the 
lands whereof her husband was seized of an estate of inheritance at any 
time during the marriage, unless she shall have lawfully released her right 
thereto. 

{b) The widow of any alien who at the time of his death shall be en- 
titled by law to hold any real estate, if she be an inhabitant of the Terri- 
tory at the time of such death, shall be entitled to dower of such estate in 
the same manner as if such alien had been a native citizen. 

{c) If a husband seized of an estate or inheritance in lands, exchanges 
them for other lands, his widow shall not have dower of both, but shall 
make her election to be endowed of the lands given or of those taken in 
exchange; and if such election be not evinced by the commencement of 
proceedings to recover her dower of the lands given in exchange within 
one year after the death of her husband, she shall be deemed to take her 
dower of the lands received in exchange. 

{d) When a person seized of an estate of inheritance in lands shall 
have executed a mortgage or other like conveyance before marriage, his 
widow shall nevertheless be entitled to dower out of the lands mortgaged 
or so conveyed, as against every person except the mortgage or grantee 
and those claiming under him. 

{e) Where a husband shall purchase lands during coverture, and shall 
at the same time execute a mortgage or other like conveyance of his estate 
in such lands to secure the payment of the purchase-money, his widow 



96 tucker's substitute. 

shall not be entitled to dower out of such lands, as against the mortgagee 
or other grantee, or those claiming under him, although she shall not have 
united in such mortgage; but she shall be entitled to ^her dower in such 
lands as against all other persons, 

(/) Where in such case the mortgagee or other grantee, or those 
claiming under him, shall, after the death of the husband of such widow, 
cause the land mortgaged or so conveyed to be sold, either under a power 
of sale contained in the mortgage or conveyence or by virtue of the 
decree of a court of equity, and if any surplus shall remain after payment 
of the moneys due on such mortgage or conveyance, and the costs and 
charges of the sale, such widow shall nevertheless be entitled to the 
interest or income of the one-third part of such surplus for her life as her 
dower. 

(^) A widow shall not be endowed of lands conveyed to her husband 
by way of mortgage unless he acquire an absolute estate therein during 
the marriage period. 

(h) In case of divorce dissolving the marriage contract for the 
misconduct of the wife, she shall not be endowed. 

{i) The term "lawful wife," wherever used in this statute, shall be held 
to mean, in all cases of Mormon or plural marriages, the first wife; and 
such wife only shall be entitled to dower under this act on the death of 
her husband. 

Sec. 23. That the existing election districts and apportionments of 
representation concerning the members of the Legislative Assembly of 
the Territory of Utah are hereby abolished; and it shall be the duty of 
the governor, Territorial secretary, and the United States marshal in said 
Territory forthwith to redistrict said Territory, and apportion representa- 
tion in the same in such manner as to provide, as nearly as may be, for an 
equal representation of the people (excepting Indians not taxed), being 
citizens of the United States, according to numbers, in said Legislative 
Assembly, and to the number of members of the council and house ot 
representatives, respectively, as now established by law; and a record of 
the establishment of such new districts and the apportionment of 
representation thereto shall be made in the office of the secretary of said 
Territory, and such establishment and representation shall continue until 
Congress shall otherwise provide; and no persons other than citizens of 
the United States otherwise 'qualified shall be entitled to vote at any 
election in said Territory. 

Sec. 24. That the provisions of section 9 of said act, approved March 
22, 1882, in regard to registration and election officers, and the registration 
of voters, and the conduct of elections, and the powers and duties of the 
board therein mentioned, shall continue and remain operative until the 



tucker's substitute. 97 

provision and laws therein referred to, to be made and enacted by the 
Legislative Assembly of said Territory of Utah, shall have been made and 
enacted by said assembly and shall have been approved by Congress. 

Sec. 25. That every male person over twenty-one years of age 
resident in the Territory of Utah shall appear before the clerk of the 
probate court of the county wherein he resides, and register himself by 
his full name, with his age, place of business, his status, whether single or 
married, and if married, the name of his lawful wife, and shall take and 
subscribe an oath, to be filed in said court, stating the facts aforesaid, and 
that he will support the Constitution of the United States and will faith- 
fully obey the laws thereof, and especially will obey the law aforesaid 
approved March 22, 1882, and this act, in respect of the crimes in said 
acts defined and forbidden; and that he will not directly or indirectly aid, 
abet, counsel, or advise, any other person to commit the same. No 
person not so registered, or who shall have been convicted of any crime 
under this act or under "An act to amend section 5352 of the Revised 
Statutes of the United States, in reference to bigamy, and for other 
purposes," approved March 22, 1882, or who shall be a polygamist, or 
associate or cohabit polygamously with persons of the other sex, or who 
shall not take and subscribe the oath aforesaid, shall be entitled to vote in 
any election in the Territory, or be capable of jury service, or to hold any 
office of trust or emolument in the Territory. 

Sec. 26. That the council of the Territory of Utah shall hereafter 
consist of thirteen members, appointed by the President, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate, every two years, the members of which 
shall be citizens resident in the said Territory, one to be selected from 
each district of the Territory, according to the apportionment provided 
for in the twenty-third section of this act. 

Sec. 27. That all judges of the county and probate courts and select- 
men of each county of said Territory, and all clerks of said courts, justices 
of the peace, sheriffs, constables, and other Territorial, county, and 
district officers, shall (after the expiration of the terms of office of those 
now in office) be appointed as follows: and all laws to the contrary are 
hereby repealed: 

The President shall have power to nominate and, by and with the ad- 
vice and consent of the Senate, to appoint all judges and selectmen of 
the county and probate courts for the term of two years. The said courts 
shall appoint their clerks, recorders, and registers of deeds, wills, and 
other papers by law required to be recorded. 

The governor, by and with the advice and consent of the council, shall 
have power to appoint all justices of the peace, all sheriffs, constables,and 



98 tucker's substitute. 

other county and district officers, and all other officers of the Territory 
not herein otherwise provided for. 

Six. 28. Tliat the office of Territorial superintendent of district 
schools created by the laws of Utah is hereby abolished; and it shall be 
the duty of the governor of said Territory to appoint a commissioner of 
schools, who shall possess and exercise all the powers and duties hereto- 
fore imposed by the laws of said Territory upon the Territorial superin- 
tendent of district schools, and who shall receive the same salary and 
compensation, which shall be paid out of the treasury of said Territory. 
The said commissioner shall have power to prohibit the use in any district 
school of any book of a sectarian ch;iracfcr or otherwise unsuitable. Said 
commissioner shall collect and classify statistics and other information 
respecting ihe district schools in said Territory, showing their progress, 
the whole number of children of school age, the number who attend 
school in each year in the respective counties and average length of time 
of iheir attendance, the number of teachers, and the compensation paid 
to the same, the number of teachers who are Mormons, the number who 
are not Mormons, the number of children of^Mormon parents, and the 
number of children of parents who are not Mormons, and their respect- 
ive average attendance at school. All of which statistics and informa- 
tion shall be annually reported to Congress through the governor of said 
Territory and the Department of the Interior. 



njTTL 



ijiTLruTJTiJTJTJiruxmTnjTnjuiJTJTJTJTJxr^^ 



nnn 



THE 




The ' Chief Advocates af Anti-Mnrmnn 
MeasurES 



RKVIEWED 



By theh Speeches in the House of Representatives^ January 

12, 1887, on the Bin Reported by J. Randolph 

Tucker as a Substitute for Sefiator 

Edmund'' s Bill against the 

Mormon Church. 



BY R. AV. SLOAN 



Salt Lake City, Utah; 
1887. 



mj-LT 



rLTxnjiJxriJTJUTJxnjTJxnjTruinrLnnjTJ^^ 
Price, 25 Cents. 



:e 



C5 



p.WMme©MiA. 



Wholesale and Retail Dealer in 



CROCKERY, CLOTHING, ETC. 

Whlever You Want, Wa Silisfy Ciisloinsrs in alPSespecls, 



East Temple Street, Salt Lake City. 



->^H4YNBSr&*S0NS,K- 




^^^ 




'a/t^eM: 



/ 



ieE:E=>-^IISIISTO- IDOnSTE. 



We challenge Competition in Work, and do not 
fear Prices, 



CAIiL ON US. 

241 W. South Temple Street* 



Established 1!^6S. 



^ion's f o-operative jy|ercantile |nstitut'n, 

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, 

Manufacturers, Importers and Wholesale Dealers in 

= ALL CLASSES OF MERCHANDISE. - 



H. S. El. DREDGE, Supt. 



Refitted and Refurnished Throughout. 

Rates: $1.50 to $2.00 per Day. Special Rates to large Parties 
^"'^^T^iS^c^l/^'^'' SJLT LAKE CITY. 

HUBERT L. HALL, PROPRIETOR. 



XjOOISZ oxjti ^ 



Utah liiicoltiiralist aod Stocktioldei 

SEMI-MONTHLY. 20 PAGES 8x14. 



^^(xk iw <xU Sic^pect^ cFlr^t, £a^t ctwh d^nJC^^J^. 



33 OO per ^^an.rL-a.r«., ian. .A-d.^a,rLce. 

Insure Your lyifel 

imm I iimmi mutual lips \mimi m, 

OF THE XJlsriTEr) ST.A^TES. 

Solid Company. Co-operative Plan. Cheap and Safe. 

R. W. SLOAN, RESIDENT AGENT, SALT LAKE. 

Write for Particulars. 



neber J. Gf.tn . Prest. J P. Grant, V-Prest. Geo. T Odel!, Treas. R. S. Wells. Secj. 

J. I'. Grant, General Manager. 



._5#l 



f!of . fapB aM lacWie Co., 



[Incorporated.! 



-CMO- ^ 



SOLE AGENTS FOR THE CELEBRATED 

t^itchell and Bain hm and Spring 

John Deere and JVIoline J^lows, 
W. A. Wood and Champion 

HARVESTING MACHINES, 

Russell & Co. & Buffalo Pitts Threshers, 
Engines and Saw Mills, 

Oliver & Gale Chilled Plows, 

Tiger & Gale Hay Rakes, 

California Concord Harness. 



„ T T r-^o-.t G T Odell, F.M.Lyman. 

?ohnVen?;s:i.h. Orson^rWooUey. C.' J.Burton, W. W. kiter. 

J F Wells, J/)s. K. Smith, Geo. R.mney. 



SALT LAKE CITY AND OGDEN, UTAH. 



) 


y > 


;■> 


-*) > 


» 


> > 


~» 


> > 


» 


> ) 


>;>■ 


> > 


> > 


> > 


>-> 


) > 


y> 


) > 


» 


>) 


» 


) :) 


» 


) .:> 



>J> J> 


:> 


> > :> 


y 


^^> 


> 


' ^ ^ 


> 


> > > 


I 


^ ^ > 


— 


>> > 


-^ 


)> > 


"3 


>>^ 




o:>- 




:>> 




.o:» ' 





> ) ^:> . 


^>>> ^ 


^ :> >^ 


5>^^ 


S) >^ 


^ :» > > 


^ > :>> 


>^ > > ^ 


» 7 >;» 



)> ) > > 



1> ) >>^ 
1% > > > 






i> ^ 


> y ' 


^> 


» '~^ 


>>> 


)■> > 


^^.> ' 


• > > 


^> 


> > > 


>:» ^ 


> -> 


>^^ 


;> -^ J^ 




> > J> 




> ■> > 




> y 


s^^ 1 ^ 


, > > 



r^:x> 


-^ -'■' =d 


) o> 


i)>l 


o r5> . 


>>^ 


, ^;^^ 


:> > 


J> 


>>- ^ 


> ^ 


>>> 


► >:> 


> -► > 


► >^ 


> >> 


> > 


o» 




7 > > 


> "> 


> > > 


>^ 


^^^^ 


> > 


> y\ ^ 


> > 


> > 


> > 


> y 


-> > > 


;^) ,::i 


) > > 


» ■>? 


)> > 


>■ v^ 


>> > 


J>.> 


> > > 


J>^ 


> ) > 


> -) ./>: 


> > > 


>^ -o 


v> > 


>> ^ 


ft >>^ 


>.^ 


¥ ^ r> > 


> > 


► o 


> > 


^ ) > 


:> ^ 


> ) -^ 


:> > 


^ > > 


> ) 


► ' "> - 


> ) 


> ^•^>- 


> y y 


> ) :> > > ■> 


f >> 


> > 


» > > 


:. ■ >Z 


> > > 


) >" 


> '^ 


> ■> >; 


> -> 


> ») 


> ■ ^ ^ 


> )»■ 




yy^ 




■7 )>) 


>y - - 


> )v;> 


y> » J 


1 ^>':> 


•) '■> > 


)i'> 


1) ^:> :> 


))^> 


) ■> > " 


-)>> 


,> > : 


fTyj> 


^ y > 


^> 


:> > 


>> 


■> > > 


>>> 


> > :» 


)>!> 


> > 


>» 


V. > > 


)55> 


^ > > 


^)» 


> > 


>^B5 


. > > 


> >53Bi 






^ ■ ) ,.^ 




> > > 


'^^oi 


^ ■>>> 


"^^^T^ 


. ).'■>> 


-J^--^ 


. ■ O > 


> 


► >> 


) 


► >3» 


>■■> 


» » 


> 


*. >> 


> 



>> »^> ) 

» > *> » . 

^> > ) > > 

> ^> 3 > i) > 

) ^> ) > > > 



■> ■ 


^> 


> ' ) 


v» 


> > > 


> >J) 


> ^ '> 


) s > > 


> > ^ 


>^ ^> 


■> > 


o >: 


-> > 


^> > 


-) > 


)) > ^ 


:> > 


) ) > 


3 ;> ^ 


>^ ) 


>> > 


;»> ) 


:> > ) 


>> > 


» ^ 


^> > 


» > 


:>> ^ 


» > 


j>> > 


» ) 


» ^ 






. ) > !:^:»'^> > 
» > >:> » ^ r 

- > >'■> J> >r» > >> > 
> > > > > »» ~> >> 3 
^>>> :> » :> 



)5» > 



► )»> > 
►:>;>>> > 



1> 


:> 


■> > 


» 


> 


» > 




) 


i^ 


» 


>> 




> 


">i 


> :% 


-* 


>) 


p» ^ 









LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




017 055 947 2 # 



